Re: [bfcpbis] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>]

Barry,

Following up on this email (and building a growing to-do list)....
------ Original Message ------
From: "Barry Leiba" <[e-mail]>
To: "The IESG" <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; 
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
[e-mail]
Sent: 3/5/2015 9:46:31 AM
Subject: [bfcpbis] Barry Leiba's Discuss on 
draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

>Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13: Discuss
>
>When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>Please refer to 
>http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>DISCUSS:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The IANA Considerations are a bit confusing, as they appear to ask IANA
>to do things that were already done long ago.  I understand that you 
>want
>to leave the main text of the IANA Considerations intact, for 
>posterity,
>and you've put in some "Editorial note" things.  Maybe the best way to 
>do
>this is to (1) change "Editorial note" to "IANA note" or "Note to IANA"
>throughout, (2) change the first IANA note (in the base Section 15) to
>clearly state that all *changes* that IANA is being asked to make are
>spelled out in "IANA note" items in the appropriate places, and (3) 
>make
>sure that item 2 is true.  And you do need to respond to Pearl Liang's
>IANA review from 2 March, and answer her questions.

I added this to the list.


>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Thanks VERY much for leaving it so that a diff with 4582 was still 
>useful
>for review.  That helped a great deal.
>
>It's a little nothing, so ignore this if you like, but you consistently
>use "MUST" throughout the document, except for one "SHALL" in Section
>8.3.3.  If it were me, I'd be consistent and use "MUST" there as well, 
>to
>avoid any question of why that one is different.
Easy enough.  On the list.


>Thanks for making the editorial changes to the ABNF; I do prefer "*(X)"
>to "*[X]".  On the other hand, I actually prefer "*X" to both of those:
>there's no need to use parentheses around a single production name.  
>So,
>for example, this:
>
>    BENEFICIARY-INFORMATION =   (BENEFICIARY-INFORMATION-HEADER)
>                                [USER-DISPLAY-NAME]
>                                [USER-URI]
>                               *(EXTENSION-ATTRIBUTE)
>
>Is the same as this:
>
>    BENEFICIARY-INFORMATION =   BENEFICIARY-INFORMATION-HEADER
>                                [USER-DISPLAY-NAME]
>                                [USER-URI]
>                               *EXTENSION-ATTRIBUTE
>
>No harm either way, so leave it as is if you really like it, but... why
>the parentheses, especially as long as you're changing them anyway?

  I'll add this to the list to discuss with the co-authors.

Paul