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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

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/