Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-krb-wg-des-die-die-die-04

Christer Holmberg <> Thu, 05 April 2012 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3945421F8629 for <>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 15:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EkW4Xxqmypln for <>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 15:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 148F121F85C0 for <>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 15:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7b18ae000000dce-3f-4f7e1abac37d
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (AES128-SHA/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 06.D1.03534.ABA1E7F4; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 00:20:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 00:20:41 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Sam Hartman <>, Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:17:14 +0200
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-krb-wg-des-die-die-die-04
Thread-Index: Ac0TPP1nIhmyh61gRnCCnJ3/RdcT2gAPN2N3
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-krb-wg-des-die-die-die-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 22:20:45 -0000


I think it's good to have separate (sub-)sections per RFC. Also, if some specific section of an RFC is updated, it is sometimes good to mention, depending on how difficult it will be for a reader to "map" the updates into the RFCs.

Things may be obvious to people who have worked with the RFCs, and know them by heart, but we have to think about the first-time readers/implementors :)

Also, I think "Recommendations" sounds confusing. The "recommend" wording normally has another meaning in RFCs. And, you are not recommending anything - you are specifying.



From: Sam Hartman []
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 6:01 PM
To: Tom Yu
Cc: Christer Holmberg;;
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-krb-wg-des-die-die-die-04

My peresonal preference is to retain Recommendations as the title to
section 5.
I have no opinion on whether adding subsections would be a good idea or
It's probably not worth spinning a new draft for that but if people
believe it desirable it's fine to fold in with other changes in my
Obviously, wait for direction from our AD.