Just taking up one point for the time being.... Even if the reference model is informational, I was relying on RFC 8067, s1, para 3: Section 2 of [RFC3967] lists some conditions under which downrefs may make sense. In addition to those, it has become common for working groups to produce foundational documents (which contain important information such as terminology definitions and architectural design and considerations) at Informational status, and those documents are often needed as normative references in the Standards Track protocol documents that follow. I would say that sombody implementing ACP really needs to have read and understood the reference model and so I would argue:1. That it needs to be normative,and2. The downref is sanctioned by the language in RFC 8067. I am on holiday for a week and others are fighting the draft deadline so perhaps we can postpone discussion of the other points until the draft panic has subsided. Cheers,Elwyn Sent from Samsung tablet. -------- Original message --------From: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> Date: 01/03/2018 02:45 (GMT+01:00) To: Elwyn Davies <[email protected]>, [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC Review of draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-13 Replying as a protagonist -
First thanks for the really thorough review with many good points. Now a few replies in-line: On 28/02/2018 15:24, Elwyn Davies wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > you need a stand-by generator, you need a stand-by enrollment server). <snip> > s15.2: I think some of these references are normative: > especially ietf-anima-reference-model, Definitely not, it's an informational document. Regards Brian
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
