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

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

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/
> 
> 
>