[NNTP] Re: GenART reviews of draft-ietf-nntpext-tls-nntp-07 and draft-ietf-nntpext-authinfo-09

[Russ Allbery]

Ken Murchison <ken at oceana.com> writes:
> Ned Freed wrote:

>> Why not simply refer to draft-ietf-sasl-gssapi-02.txt - I assume that's
>> the document you're talking about. There's nothing wrong with having a
>> reference to an I-D; the RFC Editor knows how to handle them.

> That's what I originally had, but discussion on the list urged/forced me
> to only reference RFCs and include the note to the editor to update the
> references if the appropriate I-Ds moved to RFCs before our
> document. I'll gladly go back to referencing the most current I-Ds.

> Russ?

For informative references, I believe it's fine to just reference the
draft and let the RFC Editor deal with it.  The concern with referencing
drafts was additional hold-up at the publishing stage when we don't
actually care whether we go with the current reference or the later
reference, but my understanding is that that this concern doesn't apply to
informative references.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>