Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-17
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 02 December 2014 17:13 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491AF1A06E9; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 KYQ5vsGLS8mz; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6AD21A1A73; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unnumerable.local ([173.64.248.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sB2HDGQO020890 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 2 Dec 2014 11:13:16 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [173.64.248.98] claimed to be unnumerable.local
Message-ID: <547DF327.6040803@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:13:11 -0600
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <546FB4E7.7060704@nostrum.com> <547DE944.9000709@nostrum.com> <CALaySJ+gpLBcVCF_kwbPf4MkQr_8nm5KsZaHXH_FDCaZFF7=Og@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+gpLBcVCF_kwbPf4MkQr_8nm5KsZaHXH_FDCaZFF7=Og@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000003020700070303030801"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/UegPCmc38_BhDLddWUDX4gIPYKQ
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-17
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:13:27 -0000
On 12/2/14 11:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Hi, Robert, and thanks so much for the re-review. > >> First: (For Barry as sponsoring AD and shepherd): >> >> I think you might want to say more about how this and the related PWG >> documents are being handled cross-organization. >> >> An RFC that normatively updates a document under some other organization's >> change control is an unusual thing. Usually there are parallel documents >> coordinating this. Is there such a parallel PWG doc this time? >> >> Why aren't there RFC variants of the PWG docs (we've republished other >> organization's documents in the RFC series before...) > When you suggest saying more, are you suggesting saying more in the document? I mostly meant the writeup - I expect there will be IESG folks with the same questions I had. But see below. > > This document is updating and augmenting the earlier documents that > were published by the IPP working group, when it existed, and this > document is under IETF change control. It does reference documents > from PWG, that's true, but I don't see anything remarkable about that: > we've done it often. As the Permanent URI Schemes registry is Expert > Review, this could have been done through a PWG document, but the PWG > wanted IETF review of this document, and the document did benefit > greatly from that. I think the right thing happened here, which is > why I AD-sponsored it. > > Mostly, the reason the IETF isn't republishing the PWG documents is > that there's no current interest in the IETF for IPP, and the people > who care about IPP are over at PWG. Getting a new, secure URI scheme > defined correctly was important, and we've done that. But there > wouldn't be any real value in republishing the PWG documents. > > Do you think we need to do/say more about this now? The document says: This document updates: ... c) IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP Version 2.0 Second Edition [PWG5100.12], by extending section 4 'IPP Standards' and section 10 'Security Considerations'. This RFC-to-be is updating an IEEE-ISTO PWG document, and that seems exceptional enough to warrant mention about how the organizations are coordinating that update. Maybe it would help to be specific about _how_ this document is updating that external document? > >> version 17 improves several aspects over 16, but there are still reference >> issues reported by idnits. >> The most important ones to fix are the Missing Reference issues it calls >> out. > All of the "missing references" are only notes in the "change log" > section. They don't apply to the document now, and the section will > be removed by the RFC Editor. Ok - thanks - I hadn't spotted that. > > There are two reference notes that still apply: > >> -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ASCII' > That's to the ANSI spec for ASCII, and is fine. > >> -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2566 >> (Obsoleted by RFC 2911) > That is intentional; it's in the list of IPP versions, and is marked > in that list as obsolete. > > Barry
- [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mcdonald-ipps-… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mcdonald-i… Michael Sweet
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mcdonald-i… Ira McDonald
- [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-mcdonald… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-mcdo… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-mcdo… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-mcdo… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-mcdo… Michael Sweet
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-mcdo… Pete Resnick
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-mcdo… Ira McDonald
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-mcdo… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-mcdo… Barry Leiba