Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-00

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 07 May 2013 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE8121F90DF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 15:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c5-um4BLsmw6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 15:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-x233.google.com (mail-vb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9435921F90CC for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2013 15:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id x16so1015073vbf.24 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 May 2013 15:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SQq5qemhNWdIu1O8OydnzJ3sYQiacVNDKvmm+oh22qA=; b=SqSg3TvhSSNvQbvnmVEw/imU+ToVwYaJBu3EL6Q5ESV8ME8kfd8MQXXMjdBboSCrU8 rnlPBB5Lw4xLhAVo4DxDKw438JCOX+6YKTPDwSTFsQi/Xb8kgCkXD7D4bqTY7rDwXsbK YODHogE14fnP5uQ9cq1Q9cY0CFOkMTtqsd66oNGJUVADymE+p2Gvf7OxD9mq0hr8f1eq JqBXzwfXBY5d1uUnB9lWydrdnpbj+6l5FwTxQ4vV9H8ZxkcFL62o7TQuQzAUwVFU0z8b sbMknxB6y8w6LhFB60L6YNx5JESZJsa3s4NJo2u1j3pKXo2R6RigndcgmLCHkzKaXMLz FGoA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.233.34 with SMTP id tt2mr2276281vdc.70.1367967212020; Tue, 07 May 2013 15:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.58.6.233 with HTTP; Tue, 7 May 2013 15:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwaMWbLbgAquXXnC1a_CRgu4zUgHwykc71_on2-99eAxww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130503141649.0d8252f0@elandnews.com> <5187DA74.9020204@tana.it> <CAL0qLwaMWbLbgAquXXnC1a_CRgu4zUgHwykc71_on2-99eAxww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 18:53:31 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: B7kyBfE7PQDDIgTgrJStFiVFtvU
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVAiiOK1JPo1ehrtpEkCfQ11a6501R_t=MBTiL_jy7_Lew@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-00
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 22:53:33 -0000

Just on one item:

>> 8.1. *Normative References*
>>
>> [AR-ORIG] will be obsolete by the time this I-D is published.  How can
>> it be a normative reference?
>
> That's a good procedural question.  I think it has to be because it involves
> IANA actions that are being amended, but I think this is something that can
> be sorted out during IESG Evaluation.

Coupla things:

1. It's usually not necessary for the obsolescent document to be a
normative reference, as the obsoleting document has all the necessary
information.  That's certainly true in this case, and I suggest making
the reference informative.

2. Have I told you how unhappy I am with the citation style you use?
It's generally not something I'm willing to argue about, preferring to
defer to the authors' style of citations, but in this case it seems
particularly bad.  May I suggest this?:

OLD
   [AR-ORIG] defined a new header field for electronic mail messages
   that presents the results of a message authentication effort in a
   machine-readable format.

NEW
   The first edition of this document [RFC5451] defined a new header
   field for electronic mail messages that presents the results of a
   message authentication effort in a machine-readable format.

...and replace all other instances of "[AR-ORIG]" with "[RFC5451]" (or
even just "RFC 5451"; how many citations to the same document do you
need?).

Barry