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

["Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>]

Agreeing with everything Sharon and David said, what about the reference [8] to
 RFC 2373 (for a valid textual representation of an IPv6 address)?

RFC2373 has been superseded by RFC3513 (still PS) which is now being superseded
by
draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-02.txt
and there are changes in this area of textual representation, some additions,
some removals.

So, if you really mean RFC2373, then there is a technical problem which will
stop this work progressing.

If you mean whatever IPv6 comes up with, then a reference to RFC3513 will be
technically ok but will stop progress along the standards track since RFC3513
will not progress but the one that supersedes it may.

So again, I think you want a reference here to work in progress, citing the I-D
name, with a note as David suggests
-- RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with RFC number and remove this note
alongside reference [8].  (I trust the RFC editor to delay publication until the
IPv6 draft makes it to RFC:-)

In passing, you can see a reference of the form I like, albeit without the RFC
editor note,
in
draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-05.txt

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "David B Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: "'Rainer Gerhards'" <rgerhards@hq.adiscon.com>; "'syslog'"
<syslog-sec@employees.org>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:45 PM
Subject: RE: [Syslog-sec] RE: While you are at it ...


> Hi,
>
> Sharon's suggestion had two parts:
> RFCXXXX rather than RFC9999 - ok.
> But also instructions to the RFC Editor in a format the RFC Editor
> knows to look for:
> -- RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with RFC number and remove this note
>
> dbh
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: syslog-sec-bounces@www.employees.org
> > [mailto:syslog-sec-bounces@www.employees.org] On Behalf Of
> > Rainer Gerhards
> > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 8:43 AM
> > To: syslog
> > Subject: RE: [Syslog-sec] RE: While you are at it ...
> >
> > Sharon,
> >
> > thanks for the comment. I'll change it to RFC XXXX.
> >
> > Rainer
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: syslog-sec-bounces@www.employees.org
> > > [mailto:syslog-sec-bounces@www.employees.org] On Behalf Of
> > > Sharon Chisholm
> > > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 1:58 PM
> > > To: syslog
> > > Subject: RE: [Syslog-sec] RE: While you are at it ...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > </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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Syslog-sec mailing list
> > Syslog-sec@www.employees.org
> > http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog-sec mailing list
> Syslog-sec@www.employees.org
> http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec

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