Subject: Re: [sipcore] draft-sparks-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-00

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 17:37:32 -0500

I am not aware of any rule against a PS updating an informational RFC. A 
PS is assumed to have greater "maturity" than an informational. The 
opposite would be more of a problem.

If such text is added, it's probably worth mentioning the status, and 
the fact that the update is in a PS is not intended to change that. 
(That is, any text added by the update would still be informational.)

Thanks!

Ben.

On 16 Jun 2016, at 11:25, Dale R. Worley wrote:

> "Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)" <[email-masked]> writes:
>> A reminder that RFC 3325 is an informational document, so I am not
>> sure whether a standards track document can update an informational
>> document. Anyone able to clarify?
>
> I searched, but I couldn't find much guidance on what update documents
> are or are not allowed to do in the BCP directory.
>
> Dale
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 15:08:22 -0400

> (That is, any text added by the update would still be informational.)

I suppose the thing to do is mark that part of the PS as
"non-normative".  Maybe "This section is a non-normative update to the
informational RFC nnnn."?

Dale

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:31:58 -0500

> informational RFC nnnn."?

I fear that a discussion about what it means to normatively or 
non-normatively update something would be harder to resolve than we 
might like. Simply noting that the RFC being updated is informational, 
and remains so as updated seems sufficient.

OTOH, it would also be perfectly reasonable to split any such update 
into a separate informational draft.

Ben.