Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Wed, 27 November 2019 01:54 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8844B120816; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 17:54:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.28
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.28 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jIX_6StkyM4y; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 17:54:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0B041200B9; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 17:54:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.102] ([47.186.30.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id xAR1sTq7091224 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Nov 2019 19:54:30 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1574819671; bh=WWCt9EVZqY2d/XkrQjw5Kh2IlloT4fnhVy5zusSUC88=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=vpkXoQfKE+olzwcyUlKZQz76egqaNBWx2o9Lpbh9m9+/k3yUyS5Zhcq2wLHmyW/HX uH5oVJbw3XLX+DBTctBTy0RAyIiDqXPYaKqPfrToFvhjgeymTkbGNRyk5kloAPoE4a K15NPCKA0hLYTQwPl+5s8Ml+W/tJ4BHxOX4Vb6So=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.30.41] claimed to be [192.168.3.102]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 19:54:29 -0600
Message-Id: <9F9A2298-0088-40B2-A69C-7F63D17EB8E3@nostrum.com>
References: <3a7db097-84c0-4c44-aed0-51196a6a16b6@www.fastmail.com>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis.all@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <3a7db097-84c0-4c44-aed0-51196a6a16b6@www.fastmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17B111)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/CsO7ynps0GyOF3ksJyyZscFhxvU>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 01:54:34 -0000

Hi Martin -

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 26, 2019, at 5:16 PM, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>; wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the review Robert,
> 
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019, at 09:47, Robert Sparks via Datatracker wrote:
>> Neither the document nor the shepherds write-up acknowledge or explain the
>> replacement of RFC6838 with RFC3986 for a reference for specifying fragment
>> identifier syntax and semantics (hence dropping the reference to 6838). It
>> would be nice to have something captured in the record that supports/explains
>> this change.
> 
> I did notice this change in my review, but didn't consider it to be significant.  The shift in focus is within the bounds of what I consider editorial discretion as the effect is identical.

I don’t buy that. If the effect is truly identical, leaving the text alone would have been more in keeping with your characterization of the document that it exists only to make one change. 

I suspect there’s more benefit to the change than an identical effect that just makes the editor feel better. 

To be sure, this isn’t a huge deal, but it really would help to not make the readers not guess why the change was made. 

RjS