--On Friday, May 06, 2011 08:34 -0400 Tony Hansen <[email protected]>
wrote:
> One minor item. I think it would be better to use a
> placeholder reference to 5321bis instead of 5321.
Hmm.
If we do, I need to remove the places (including the new text
identified in the first change item in the pre-eval doc) where
I've put in 5321 Section numbers. I think that, when 4409bis
makes a sufficiently-precise comment that the reader can be
pointed to one section of 5321, listing the section number is
useful -- I'm more aware than most that 5321 is long and not
easy to navigate.
Worse, while I thought I'd have the bandwidth to get back to
5321bis as soon as I dropped off the IAB, the combination of
health issues and the IAB itself have caused a different
conclusion. My current best guess is that the next rev of
5321bis is going to be mid-summer at the earliest. Not even
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels would permit a normative
reference to an expired I-D. When this is approved, YAM will
also need to review whether 5321bis is actually worth the effort
-- both by itself and given opportunity costs. I don't think
the answer is obvious.
Suggested compromise: annotate the references to indicated that
newer versions of 5321/5322 may be forthcoming and that the
document should be reviewed for updates to those documents and
adjustments to the annotation just before publication.
john
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
