[NNTP] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-nntpext-streaming-05

[Russ Allbery]

Ken Murchison <ken at oceana.com> writes:
> Scott Hollenbeck wrote:

>> rfc2234bis should pop out of the RFC Editor queue before this one does
>> (the IESG can make that requirement clear to the RFC Editor if need
>> be), so no, I don't see a risk of delay.  The only "process" to does
>> this without changing the reference would be to put text in an IESG
>> note to the RFC Editor asking them to revise the reference if
>> rfc2234bis is available as an RFC before the WG documents are.

> Is there standard boilerplate for this?  Does it belong in a separate
> section, or just as a note within the references?

While I'm curious about this too in general, I think this was the
alternative to just citing the rfc2234bis draft directly, which already
triggers a dependency and then a modification of the reference to point to
the RFC when it's published.  When I was reviewing the documents, I
decided that any reference to a draft that went into Last Call or to the
RFC Editor before our documents did was fine, on the presumption that the
publishing process is generally FIFO.  Since this document has already
gone to the RFC Editor, I think it's fine to just cite the draft and let
the magic happen.

I assume the same thing applies to the base document as well?

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