Re: [apps-discuss] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-04

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

Discussing this with the IESG, I’ve currently revised this to:

“””
A specification that defines substructure within a specific URI scheme MUST do so in the defining document for that URI scheme. A specification that defines substructure for URI schemes overall MUST do so by modifying {{BCP115}}.
“””

Do you think a note about the inadvisability of doing a BCP115 modification is still necessary, or does the separation here help?

Thanks,


On 14 May 2014, at 10:49 pm, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Mark,
> 
> That works for me; thank you for following through on this.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:53 PM
>> To: Black, David
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-04
>> 
>> I got private feedback from others that they were OK with this too, so I've
>> added:
>> 
>> """
>> The latter approach is not preferred and ought only be used in exceptional
>> circumstances.
>> """
>> 
>> ("ought" instead of "should" to avoid confusion over 2119 terms).
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 8 May 2014, at 1:55 pm, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>>> What target audience are you thinking of? Anyone who has a passing
>> familiarity
>>>> with the IETF must realise that modifying a Best Current Practice isn't
>>>> something you can do unilaterally?
>>> 
>>> I'm thinking about people who aren't active in the IETF, and in particular
>>> don't pay a lot of attention to our processes (heck, it was years after I
>>> started coming to IETF meetings that I finally understood what a BCP is),
>>> but do look at our documents to figure out what to do before getting around
>>> to bringing their "clever" new ideas to us rather later than we might like
>>> to have initially seen them in a perfect world.
>>> 
>>>> I'm struggling to come up with appropriate text here. Do we really need to
>>>> caution people that the process needs to be followed, and that might be
>>>> difficult if you want to do something controversial?
>>>> 
>>>> E.g. we could say that modifying BCP115 is "unusual" - but considering that
>>>> there's a modification of it underway right now, for the second time in
>> eight
>>>> years, that's not strictly true.
>>> 
>>> Ok ... here's an suggestion that doesn't use a 2119 keyword:
>>> 
>>> OLD
>>>  A specification that defines substructure within a URI scheme MUST do
>>>  so in the defining document for that URI scheme, or by modifying
>>>  [RFC4395].
>>> NEW
>>>  A specification that defines substructure within a URI scheme MUST do
>>>  so in the defining document for that URI scheme, or by modifying
>>>  [RFC4395].  The latter approach is not preferred and should only be
>>>  used in exceptional circumstances.
>>> 
>>> IMHO, twice in eight years is consistent with "exceptional circumstances."
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> --David
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 9:58 PM
>>>> To: Black, David
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-04
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 7 May 2014, at 12:30 pm, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> For [2], while I'm sure that you're correct that any unwise attempt to
>>>> modify that BCP/RFC would be caught, IMHO, it would be helpful to add some
>>>> text to warn the unwise earlier, before they invest any significant
>>>> time/effort in pursuing that sort of modification.  I don't particularly
>> care
>>>> whether an RFC 2119 keyword is used, but I would like to see some sort of
>> clue
>>>> offered ;-).
>>>> 
>>>> I'm struggling to come up with appropriate text here. Do we really need to
>>>> caution people that the process needs to be followed, and that might be
>>>> difficult if you want to do something controversial?
>>>> 
>>>> E.g. we could say that modifying BCP115 is "unusual" - but considering that
>>>> there's a modification of it underway right now, for the second time in
>> eight
>>>> years, that's not strictly true.
>>>> 
>>>> What target audience are you thinking of? Anyone who has a passing
>> familiarity
>>>> with the IETF must realise that modifying a Best Current Practice isn't
>>>> something you can do unilaterally?
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/