RE: [Syslog-sec] RE: While you are at it ...

["Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com>]

</Rainer>
> 
> b) RFC9999 I find confusing, irritating even; normative
> references to I-Ds is
> elementary RFC-editing, they deal with it every day; put in 
> the I-D name and
> trust the editor to sort it out:-)

As far as I have been told, the way it currently is is the way to do it.
Once it is through the last call, *I* will get a last editing chance at
which time this is replaced by the actual RFC 1. As far as I've been told, a
normative RFC must only refer to other RFCs, not I-Ds. If it does, it won't
be normative until the other I-D has become an RFC.
</Rainer>

No, more typically one would say RFCXXXX with a note that the RFC editor
should fill this in when the number is available. RFC9999 is much less
likely to be caught before publication. 

Sharon
_______________________________________________
Syslog-sec mailing list
Syslog-sec@www.employees.org
http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec