Re: [apps-discuss] Publication request for draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-04

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 22 May 2013 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@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 7213F21F8EEC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 16:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 BwKXYcNCZZKS for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 16:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x229.google.com (mail-pb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0F521F8EBB for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 16:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id xb12so2261101pbc.28 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 16:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5x5UnJGOAVvibsbnO72dCNIqBvGB/I05Q7ifSs2hOt8=; b=Ok3uw0egUzbAODK0b/yI7LN/iZ+ErmmSYr5AhycAt5q4v77HdSAkWxMWZFO4mYi+U1 1dl+bi8uoWZ1p/xKaDEqg/xUkHuav7oRpdf3IqKw6FBldrbe3L5dHkSpMkQjujmCpC3F H1mU3icGSjmEaRXHhibeBOwM5hJDq20370Cy8B2sI/4e5ZMUO7aMoZ80tBvqClX0UmsD DK0UZBOMoktOt6+faiAEogB6JdTuxrVm3iUsMsk5AjViDM7LomLFK0OqxBjhtUSdw7d5 KfAFvW4ABBg2MfpiVZpGgArgCv89H4RoNA5d/Tenchu9K75DYzhXQuCNSPCKCSIRkq/L wsOg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.201.5 with SMTP id jw5mr10152745pbc.40.1369265403433; Wed, 22 May 2013 16:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.234.40 with HTTP; Wed, 22 May 2013 16:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130522160748.0b973f18@elandnews.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130522160748.0b973f18@elandnews.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 16:30:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaoG7LUQXXtGSr1uXDQrO5JTkk4rDgLf5dDFdKfbhmUhg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b15a96df9993f04dd56f11f"
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Publication request for draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-04
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: Wed, 22 May 2013 23:30:04 -0000

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:15 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:

> Hi Barry,
>
> The Appsawg requests publication of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-**04.
>  The Document Shepherd Write-Up is below.
>

Datatracker updated.  Thanks for shepherding, SM.


> 4. Other points
>
>    The document obsoletes RFC 5451 and RFC 6577.
>

This isn't explicitly called out in the Introduction or Abstract.  In
previous conversations here about another document, a few people opined
that having it stated there as well as in the first page header was a silly
practice, and I don't remember anyone insisting on it, so I've left it out
here.  We can add it in during IETF LC or such if there's strong objection
to its omission.  Clearly though, RFC5451 is obsoleted because it is the
previous version of this document, and RFC6577 is obsoleted because it was
effectively an erratum against RFC5451 that required an IANA action to
fix.  This latter thing is called out in the "Changes Since" section at the
end.


>
>    RFC 2045 and RFC 5321 are downward references.  RFC 5322 is already
> listed in
>    the DOWNREF registry.
>

A question about this: If this document is going for Internet Standard
status, is a normative reference to a Proposed Standard considered a
downward reference even though both are standards track documents?  The RFC
that talks about downward references seems to talk a lot about standards
track documents referencing Informational, Experimental or HIstoric
documents, but not to references within the standards track.

-MSK