I don't think that is a good idea to have the definition of the same process in two different documents. @Alexey confirmed that an Informational document can be used as a normative reference (i.e. downref reference), if an explanation is provided, maybe this is the way forward?
Regards, Gustavo From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Gould, James" <jgo...@verisign.com> Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 07:09 To: Peter Koch <p...@denic.de> Cc: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec-00.txt > There is a normative reference from the Standards Track > draft-ietf-regext-launchphase to draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec to describe > the claims phase. Should draft-ietf-regext-launchphase remove this normative > reference and provide a brief description of the claims phase directly? > > > > > > JG > > > > > James Gould > Distinguished Engineer > jgo...@verisign.com > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > VerisignInc.com <http://VerisignInc.com> > >> On Oct 5, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Peter Koch <p...@denic.de> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:26:33AM -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote: >> >>> and might not be organized for technical reference. One idea might be >>> to extract the technical stuff from ICANN documents and make it an IETF >>> document and then make it normative. A bit more work on IETF side but >> >> interesting side effect is that change control is with the IETF afterwards. >> >> Why exactly does the draft under consideration have to be Standards Track? >> >> -Peter >> >> _______________________________________________ >> regext mailing list >> regext@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
