Re: draft-aboba-radius-rfc2869bis-21 (fwd)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

--On torsdag, mai 15, 2003 10:23:27 -0700 Bernard Aboba 
<aboba@internaut.com> wrote:

> > Why isn't this document on the Standards Track?
> Here's the answer as I understand it.
>
> RFC 2869bis updates RFC 2869, which was Informational.  My understanding
> is that a Standards Track document can't update an Informational
> document.
No wish to reopen the debate.....

Formally, a Standards Track document can't normatively refer to an 
Informational document, except under limited circumstances.

In this case, RFC 2869 is listed under Informative references...... from 
the draft title, I take it the original idea was to have this document 
obsolete 2869, but that this goal was removed later?

However, you do have normative references to RFC 1321 and RFC 2104, both of 
which are Informational, as well as draft-chiba, which is aiming for that 
status.

1321 is MD5, and 2104 is HMAC-MD5 which is OK to refer to (the 
cryptoalgorithm exception - action item from our list:

IP	o Randy and Ned to finish ID on Clarifying when Standards Track
         Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower Level

But draft-chiba forces your hand.

            Harald, in nitpicking mode.