[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-03

Black_David@emc.com wrote:
> Harald,
>
> Many thanks for reviewing this draft.
>
>   
>> This document does 2 things:
>>
>> - Register an extension to pass implementation identities around
>> - Change the registration requirement for extensions to allow 
>> Experimental extensions to be registered
>>     
>
> It also instructs IANA to correct some registry problems.
>   
Yes, I saw that - and thought that this was a strange way of sending bug 
reports to IANA - but since the text said that this was to be removed 
before publication, I didn't comment on it.
>   
>> 1) I read RFC 3720 section 13.5.2 as saying that publication 
>> of extensions as standards-track is allowed, even though the 
>> wording is quite convoluted. So the implication of the 
>> language in section 5 that it was previously restricted to 
>> informational only seems unwarranted.
>>     
>
> The WG and the editor of the draft that became RFC 3270 do not
> share your view of the convoluted wording, and regard this draft
> as making a change to the process requirements in RFC 3270.
> At a minimum, this draft unambiguously states what is allowed.
>   
Lars pointed out that I'd actually missed one section of 3720. That 
section was clearer in what it was not saying - section 13.5.2 actually 
mentions standards track, but 12.22 doesn't. So a fix that points at 
both sections would be a Good Thing.
>   
>> 2) It would be good if section 5 of this draft pointed 
>> specifically at section 13.5.2 of RFC 3720 as the section to 
>> be updated, and provided specific language to be read as 
>> "this section is now replaced by". I *think* the text only 
>> means that the words "as an informational RFC" are changed to 
>> "as an informational or experimental RFC, as appropriate", 
>> but it would be nice to be 100% certain that this is the 
>> intended effect, and that no other section of RFC 3720 needs 
>> changing (my scan of 3720 might have overlooked something).
>>     
>
> I believe your thinking is correct, and I will supply the Area
> Director (Lars) with an appropriate RFC Editor Note.
>   
Excellent!
> Many thanks to the Gen-ART process and the people who make it
> happen, as this draft would have been far less likely to receive
> this caliber of IETF Last Call review in Gen-ART's absence.
>
> Thanks,
> --David (ips WG chair & shepherd for this draft)
>   


_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art