Re: [Gen-art] new version of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis posted

Ben Campbell <> Wed, 25 January 2012 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33C1B21F85D5; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:42:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KsKE89gmEqPP; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:42:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:266::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468B021F84CF; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:42:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0PEgFOJ093706 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:42:20 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Ben Campbell <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:42:23 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: "Henderson, Thomas R" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, " Review Team" <>, The IESG <>, David Harrington <>, Yoshifumi Nishida <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] new version of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis posted
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: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:42:55 -0000

On Jan 25, 2012, at 1:29 AM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote:


>> I guess my point was not the existence of the Appendix so much as the
>> references to information in an RFC to be obsoleted by this draft,
>> where ever it might occur. I guess these are informational reference,
>> so they are by definition not necessary to fully understand this draft.
>> But it still seems odd to me to reference information in a RFC
>> obsoleted by this one, rather than pull the material forward (perhaps
>> in an appendix). I tend to read "obsolete" to mean there's really no
>> reason to ever read it other than historical ones. That is, for most
>> practical reasons, we could pretend it no longer existed. I realize
>> this is a point of process more than a content issue, so if others are
>> okay with it, I will back away :-)
> My interpretation was that obsolete referred to the current validity of the specification aspects, but not that the obsolete RFC couldn't be referred to for informational purposes. 
> I don't care strongly; perhaps others could advise on a course of action here. 

From separate email, I gather the aforementioned  "others" share your viewpoint. So at this point I suggest leaving it as-is.

>> That works for me--except there's a vestigial SHOULD in section 5. (and
>> a 2119 reference for the purpose of saying you aren't using it. I see
>> nothing wrong with that, but it spins IDNits for a loop :-)  )
> The vestigial SHOULD is intentional; it is within a quoted sentence from RFC 5681 so I am hesitant to change it for the sake of making idnits happy (under the assumption that the RFC editor can later ignore this nit).

You are absolutely right--I was globally searching for 2119 words, and missed the context. Sorry for the confusion.