Re: I-D ACTION:draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-02.txt

On 5/10/05, Bruce Lilly <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On Tue May 10 2005 04:50, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> >
> > Bruce Lilly wrote:
> >
> > >> Scott H. wants us to use the new 2234bis in the References.
> >
> > > A normative reference would hold up publication, as the 2234
> > > successor isn't yet a published RFC.
> >
> > <http://mid.gmane.org/046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0749C9AF@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
> >
> > It's not that I necessarily agree, but it's also not an issue
> > where I'd risk a debate with an AD if I care about the draft.
> 
> "Pay the AD now or pay the RFC Editor later".  The RFC Editor will
> hold up publication as an RFC until all normative references are
> published.

Seems unlikely that any newly-approved document is going to leapfrog
the already-approved 2223bis in the RFC Editor's queue, and then get
blocked by it.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html#crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis

It's true that in the reference, it's not obivous that it's as stable
and has as much of the IETF-approved imprimateur as the RFC does; this
is at least partly a symptom of the RFC publication process taking so
long =(

  Bill