Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update-01

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 14 December 2015 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 D0A631A8A20 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:26:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 b9G-ANN1Yi6u for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22c.google.com (mail-vk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22c]) (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 CB2A41A88EC for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:26:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vkca188 with SMTP id a188so157863054vkc.0 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:26:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=7Ur2XoBrIoU3+BTKeskVIOfcE4c/8oWQ4Zj7krF9Tl0=; b=A5HP/hPnXph0K0pxM4REpysAPwc11fdaAYZeip0caiBYnwYsf7ZTwd0dVX6XDjzhMh 0O7XiwcYwkHuU1t+YhJcdc9GNZf76cqNRYKr88RXmYd7EKffmEZaDF9FdEH+fSUKRRBm x3yI6rDZkGJXyottlridTj5tZ0Iv3c6XOfT/WPyRfgYmdR08kT6qJFvte0pcQBj1OLWT aGAQYJP5b3nb2ia8IMTdTN2ST2kzWmJTNAWa0cCcsVACZnJK4A/sb0yZM0b1T/HCWyjJ USTMY4tfxit/C0h3QYO2Bc0405v78MhXfqQBZfzJUqan7QabxWv0/Xtgbtt32e+swEvb uxSw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.140.199 with SMTP id o190mr25330186vkd.63.1450110375954; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:26:15 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.31.182.211 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:26:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEC6552@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEC64BE@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <CALaySJ+gQYU5=qqza71HC+7r6LY5qJLLOViD4FWUSX4t85xq0Q@mail.gmail.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEC6552@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:26:15 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ieRbya1CXDgefxqmmnspdK34Oeg
Message-ID: <CALaySJL3ig71EDYnh2yyk2=P3V686nFwucWabp_NuFNB6_F6qA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/fnrztYWhB_vRiIG7iHzpV2QlmpU>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update-01
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: <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: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:26:18 -0000

> I am fine with this approach but this is not what the text of the 'motivational' part of the Internet-Draft says. Currently there is an a-synchronism between the text that explains what the I-D tries to do and the action it recommends.

OK, well, you know I'm always in favour of more clarity.  So how does
this sound?:

OLD
   This document changes that
   registration policy to "IETF Review", which also allows registrations
   from certain well reviewed Experimental RFCs.

NEW
   This document changes that
   registration policy to "IETF Review", which also allows registrations
   from certain well reviewed Experimental RFCs, or, for example,
   corrections to registry errors from Informational RFCs, with IETF
   review and consensus.

END

Barry