Re: ABNF nits

>> The status of USEAGE needs to be resolved before publishing
>> the document.
>
> The WG will be terminated, and the USEAGE reference is only
> informative...

Agreed.

>> If it's not going to be published, we need to strip all
>> references to USEAGE in this document.
>
> ...not required, and USEAGE won't be published anytime soon.

Indeed. An informative reference is not going to block publication of
the document.

> IMO nothing is wrong with an informative reference to prior
> related work.

IMHO, it is much better having such references in documents. This make
it much easier for people to find history of the document or related
documents. And if one google for the USEAGE document, one would find
the document long after it expires.

> But saying that it's "work in progress" when
> that's not the case (at the moment) could be bad.

An Internet draft has limited lifetime (6 months), so saying that is
is work in progress is appropriate (i.e. the work is not finished and
the document is not an RFC).

> The folks at rfc-editor.org could decide to treat USEAGE as MISSREF...

No, they wouldn't, unless you explicitly ask them to delay publication
till the informative reference is published as an RFC. They publish
RFCs with informative references to drafts all the time.

> [Actually I think they can't simply decide this, and that's
>  the core idea of "normative" vs. "informative" references.]