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

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 29/06/2022 18:54, 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/ .
>
> 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.


Francesca,

As I think John has already said, A.1/A.2 seem Normative and so 
unsuitable for an Appendix.; moving them into the body of the document 
would clarify their status.

Common practice is for a Normative Appendix, of which there are a few, 
to be explicitly labelled as such but I would see that as a poorer 
alternative.

Second, the 'NOTE' seems at variance with RFC5646 in that the RFC 
specifies that they are case insensitive.  YANG is in most respects a 
lower case language and it has the concept of canonical form so my 
understanding of RFC5646 is that the canonical form, in any YANG 
context, would be lower case, which is not what the appendix says (not 
that the appendix explicitly considers YANG but I expect tusers of this 
I-D will).

Tom Petch

> Thanks all again for your input and work,
> Francesca
>
> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/21YQX6ZIxjvQCHYxrNci-rDETaU/
>
>
>