Re: [core] [art] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-core-problem-details-05

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

FWIW, strongly agree on both points, especially the first.
   john


--On Friday, June 24, 2022 16:23 +0200 Harald Alvestrand
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Apologies for being slow in responding ....
> 
> Two main points:
> 
> - Tag 38 in its own document or not:
> My worry isn't that RFCs go away. They don't.
> My worry is instead that the problem-details doc will be
> updated. New RFC number. But no change to the tag 38 section.
> It can't "obsolete" the old one, because there is no change to
> the tag 38, and the reference still points to it.
> It will either have to "update" it, or "obsolete" it and move
> all pointers to the definition for tag 38 to the new document.
> That is a pain that makes things hard to follow. A stable tag
> 38 document would be a greater benefit to the community.
> 
> - Language tag grammar:
> If you want to have a copy of the grammar, that's pain on your
> head. I don't see the point, but your decision. If you want
> it, you need to add a prominent paragraph that says "This
> grammar represents the BCP XX grammar for language tags. If
> there are any differences found between this document and BCP
> XX, BCP XX is authoritative."
> This is commonly done in ITU documents that describe things in
> two places, for instance. Not important which one is
> authoritative, very important that only one of them is.
> 
> I'm sure the rest is details, and can be dealt with.
> 
> Harald
> 
> _______________________________________________
> art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art