Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt

Brian E Carpenter <> Wed, 29 September 2021 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992AB3A08C7 for <>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9gBMBqxxl1Op for <>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D9EC3A08C5 for <>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y8so3161599pfa.7 for <>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QI3sKW9ZjxgctqWynrB8+Yt0F6HN9Epx3yEb7un4hMk=; b=VtK50g4OYarG1FxkPNXIo6y7eZt7Zczws4ZEsXJczUsvybdriJsIk1L+0qhh7Gzk63 CCBTsUqGq7xXDpCHkXizyOVxqm5Wf8aCuTR/YezyAOQUvpxV0Fj++gSm+rQmVk8o+8EQ qQw+Y7Qt1zQ8zoXT55ZVjY85cDrIzW/BXcg9VcacTNTln4B6HLabUd5l1IQJHE18oASa 7OV8StKZdV6ZTdeF11tyuXITy5XwL1gQSab26kPOlsc0dR1uok69WJ4GR0jLZ3/aIrht D4GdUjIp4mNu0z9RsRBSytS3H1jNXklNMZPvIIxAqyUkHrgAy0AzNa91+FKZCajk7LnH dyDA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QI3sKW9ZjxgctqWynrB8+Yt0F6HN9Epx3yEb7un4hMk=; b=q+7/jvYSPFpfM8jCkU1lHs4YLWBSeP5h9pu+YImvN+jQEUszAWX037sfi+BGBTodzx n29ZJmxA0DV2qEr0wLP8jyw8MYbjJrGOOTanxRHyO47AB8Ds6mqYSI0HF0wkJeQSSkIv pPavE0VM7rJCEsgFAtr2jumLD80Gkhi82DyCBwLTtdCeoZWZrZB0h6cR0QzNH3Tmh9BR uJeiY82z9pmdjy14O3g4fjlKY+8p3VqPo59G8AahNgwA23xUHJu5FaZqXIyf3g3ZypyI Vcd7AUo/01wHJdaxO6BsPZjKr8Nh8iDY4TVnWftq+jzA5VFJq8ugjVscXDzoMZCkPcuJ JmlA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531YyZY275JfNE7Riymck2djvnXoFETgqaRMHxt4/ujfwyx29ck8 hfuV4pX/ebUcutls3PuMFQg5zlwhJmxLtA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxtoqsXoHJ+jlJDn09R+WRAyz4grFcvDuVnrC1g3EwjQg8Spy+Cth2iJAbzZsvoyBB5dlEpEQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:5902:: with SMTP id n2mr1908987pgb.305.1632953530560; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:11aa:d701:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:11aa:d701:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by with ESMTPSA id p16sm2882620pja.24.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
To: Rob Sayre <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 11:12:05 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 22:12:14 -0000

On 30-Sep-21 10:59, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 2:53 PM Brian E Carpenter < <>> wrote:
>     Add:
>     However, if the discussion is broader than the specific protocol concerned, or than administration as such, it may revert to the IETF discussion list, preferably with an appropriate change of the Subject header.
> fwiw, I don't agree with this idea at all, and in fact think it is a source of pain on the IETF discussion list.
> Either way, this would be a substantive change quite separate from the documentation this draft aims to provide, and more appropriate for a draft that aims to change BCP45 deliberately.

But the draft *does* change BCP45 deliberately - it explicitly says that some topics that used to be valid are no longer valid, and implicitly removes "direction, policy ... and [standards process] procedures". My first suggestion brings BCP45bis back closer to BCP45.

I have many times seen last call discussion veer off into extraneous technical topics and admin discussion veer off into standards process topics. Where are those topics to be raised, if not on ietf@ ?