IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis-02

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Mon, 15 February 2021 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAEEA3A0650; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 15:55:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 lcN4AdJw8ASz; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 15:55:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 DB68E3A046B; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 15:55:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 11FNtmqJ025980 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 15 Feb 2021 18:55:52 -0500
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 15:55:48 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, "dromasca@gmail.com" <dromasca@gmail.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis.all@ietf.org>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20210215235548.GN21@kduck.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7219c963c81d4a94a46f698f1f3894ff@verisign.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/wcbac6IKoqoKwIzhHDlN2E3Lul8>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 15 Feb 2021 23:55:58 -0000

Hi Scott,

> Dan, thanks for the review. Would you please give me a little more on
> what you think is needed to explain the relationship between the two
> documents? I can't think of much more to say beyond "7482 describes
> protocol queries" and "7483 describes protocol responses to the queries
> described in 7482", but would adding a few sentences to that effect in
> the Introduction do what you're suggesting? Of course, the RFC numbers
> will need to be updated.

I think the idea was (at least partially) that this, as rfc7482bis, should
describe its relationship with rfc7482-not-bis (e.g., that it obsoletes the
latter for purpose of advancing the protocol to Internet Standard), in both
Abstract and Introduction.  The fact that this document is not listed as
having an Obsoletes: relationship to rfc7482 (outside of the shepherd
writeup) makes the question of what exactly the relationship between the
two is much more interesting...

-Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email