RE: BGP vs. 2385 draft

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Mmmm.. the new abstract (as suggested by Alex) says:


   The IETF Standards Process requires that all normative references for
   a document be at the same or higher level of standardization.  RFC
   2026 section 9.1 allows the IESG to grant a variance to the standard
   practices of the IETF.  This document explains why the IESG is
   considering do so for the revised version of the BGP-4 specification
   that is being considered for publication as Draft Standard and
   normatively refers to RFC 2385, "Protection of BGP Sessions via the
   TCP MD5 Signature Option", which is staying at the Proposed Standard
   level of maturity.

I wonder about the "is considering do so".

I think by rthe time this doc gets published, we have considered it and
decided. So WOuld the abstract not be better to say:

   The IETF Standards Process requires that all normative references for
   a document be at the same or higher level of standardization.  RFC
   2026 section 9.1 allows the IESG to grant a variance to the standard
>  practices of the IETF.  This document explains why the IESG has done
>  so for the revised version of the BGP-4 specification that has been
>  approved for publication as Draft Standard and normatively refers to
   RFC 2385, "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature
   Option", which is staying at the Proposed Standard level of maturity.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent: woensdag 9 april 2003 0:09
> To: Alex Zinin; Steven M. Bellovin
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --On tirsdag, april 08, 2003 11:35:15 -0700 Alex Zinin 
> <zinin@psg.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > Steve,
> >
> >  The revised text:
> >  http://psg.com/~zinin/ietf/draft-bellovin-tcpmd5app-00-rev1.txt
> >
> >  The htmlwdiff:
> >  http://psg.com/~zinin/ietf/variance.diff.html
> >
> 
> this one works for me.
>