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

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

Hi Mark,

The separation into two sentences is an improvement.  IMHO, an additional
note about inadvisability of modifying BCP115 is still helpful.  OTOH, I'll
defer on whether it's necessary to the ADs involved in approving the draft,
as I had originally flagged this as a minor editorial item and think the
draft is ok with or without the additional note.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:11 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-04
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
>