RE: standards interdependency draft

["Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>]

Ah, thanks, great.

- J

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 2:44 PM
> To: Peterson, Jon
> Cc: 'Randy Bush'; 'ned.freed@mrochek.com'; 'iesg@ietf.org'
> Subject: Re: standards interdependency draft
> 
> 
> Jon,
> 
>   A little misplaced, but still... RFC 2026:
> 
> > 4.2.4  Historic
> > 
> ...
> >    Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on
> >    other standards track specifications which are at a 
> lower maturity
> >    level or on non standards track specifications other 
> than referenced
> >    specifications from other standards bodies.  (See Section 7.)
>   
> 
> -- 
> Alex
> 
> Friday, April 4, 2003, 2:18:14 PM, Peterson, Jon wrote:
> 
> > Regarding the draft on interdependencies between standards-track and
> > Informational drafts discussed on the last telechat, will 
> this draft also
> > clarify the issue of interdepencies between documents at 
> different stages of
> > the standards track?
> 
> > I've heard it asserted in the past that in order for a 
> document to move to
> > Draft Standard, it must contain no normative references to 
> documents at
> > Proposed Standard. However, I've had a hard time finding a specific
> > reference for that principle. The distinction in rfc2026 
> between Technical
> > Specifications and Applicability Statements (especially the 
> last paragraph
> > of 3.2) can be read to say this, but only if you consider 
> any document with
> > a normative reference to another standard to be an 
> Applicability Statement.
> > Some clarification on this either way would be nice.
> 
> > - J
>