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

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

> 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/
> 
> 
>