Re: [art] Call for comments on draft-ietf-core-problem-details-07

[Marco Tiloca <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

(with chair hat off)

I agree with the suggestion below and support keeping this document as is.

Best,
/Marco

On 2022-06-29 19:54, Francesca Palombini wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have reviewed this thread [1], and the updates to the document: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-problem-details/ 
> <https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-core-problem-details%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C2fc3615471b34245267d08da59f86128%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C637921220568927979%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Auh2DCV7sWoKY1QtYX4jS2yyY6OxE6cp3xLDqrfKSZ4%3D&reserved=0> 
> .
>
> First of all, thanks everybody for the reviews, the discussion and for 
> the work on the document - I do believe the document is in better 
> shape now.
>
> V-05 was reviewed by the IESG, and responses to AD reviews have 
> resulted in v-06. Changes from v-06 to v-07 are the result to Harald's 
> Last Call review and consequent discussion, which has happened over 
> the Last-Call mailing list (cc’ing the CoRE and ART mailing lists). 
> For this reason I believe that the community is aware of the changes, 
> and people who are interested have been able to follow and participate 
> in the discussion, and that a second Last Call is not needed, as it 
> would only add a "process delay" and not help progress.
>
> I also want to note that I have alerted the IESG of the recent updates 
> and my evaluation of not needing another Last Call, added the document 
> as a management item to next telechat to make sure all the ADs are 
> aware, and welcome updated ballots following v-07 changes.
>
> Regarding the comments received, it is my opinion that most comments 
> have been addressed: the only outstanding point I can see people not 
> agreeing on is if the Appendix should be split into its own document 
> or kept as is. With the basis that keeping the tag in was what the WG 
> agreed on, and with the knowledge that we have both a mechanism to 
> address future updates to the tag, if needs arise, and to update the 
> reference in the IANA registry, if the problem details doc is itself 
> updated, in the interest of progressing this work without creating 
> further delays, I suggest to keep the document as is.
>
> If anybody has significant objections to the summary above, or 
> substantive unresolved issues with draft-ietf-core-problem-details-07 
>  that would benefit from more discussion, please raise them by July 6th.
>
> Thanks all again for your input and work,
>
> Francesca
>
> [1] 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/21YQX6ZIxjvQCHYxrNci-rDETaU/ 
> <https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Flast-call%2F21YQX6ZIxjvQCHYxrNci-rDETaU%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C2fc3615471b34245267d08da59f86128%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C637921220568927979%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=I8sXZ7yrVDFiGzCbLxS16mIYxWl3ZwJqNIxA2hoJXe4%3D&reserved=0> 
>
>

-- 
Marco Tiloca
Ph.D., Senior Researcher

Phone: [phone]

RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB
Box 1263
164 29 Kista (Sweden)

Division: Digital Systems
Department: Computer Science
Unit: Cybersecurity

https://www.ri.se