Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-eggert-bcp45bis-01.txt

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Tue, 30 March 2021 11:51 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 412FD3A0DAD for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 04:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 Fs9ulU3bVW3E for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 04:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (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 96C113A0DAE for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 04:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:1894:d982:c139:2ff9] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:1894:d982:c139:2ff9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C8E5600076; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 14:51:43 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1617105103; bh=fP0dI3+7FmdfIlp7LU2770qJ59NmMR2W53mxuyrTzOM=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=IPSsTMsE3/wH91IXCJYVwT3vGJdPpXxY37bQl1TEzqBeveoNas15CfQB6SN8RkdoJ QiNEhc3jqPkHq0qTfUYvDS/U6fotf4c0ksQzIBGdSg5NdFFkhvZvxdvXYCM31QGULE wI5ijBATFWrvuEjRIRuqtG8CRnv6tYBdkfmSsQFk=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <85530917-231F-4E6D-A49C-6001E099C56D@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_130B5380-6A29-4770-BC35-B563DE8D5373"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 14:51:43 +0300
In-Reply-To: <bf8d64d3-67d4-c6d0-d4e2-9ca424b9cd5b@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, gendispatch@ietf.org
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <161701910454.13044.908232164554537032@ietfa.amsl.com> <55b4e061-f25d-8958-1e75-868bec0c735e@gmail.com> <D277EB6F-FDB1-4588-A77B-FC29B0FB782F@eggert.org> <963ED8F3-712F-4E8D-BF29-A3E7735E4641@mnot.net> <53AB2142-8BC2-43AC-86E7-EC9F1E72D9D3@cisco.com> <71B14C3D-AF8C-4C7F-9C14-03686F499E4D@eggert.org> <bf8d64d3-67d4-c6d0-d4e2-9ca424b9cd5b@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-MailScanner-ID: 8C8E5600076.A1A0F
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/mcKgkwuTBv3p-2kp7fPJS9bOeiw>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-eggert-bcp45bis-01.txt
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:51:57 -0000

Hi,

On 2021-3-30, at 14:49, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> My only quibble with draft-eggert-bcp45bis is that the
> opening sentence from section 2 ("This list is meant for
> initial technical discussion only.") is badly phrased
> and contradicted by later text.

true - it's unchanged from RFC3005 at the moment.

> I think it'd be better to
> say "This list is not meant for detailed technical
> discussion that belongs on a WG list or on it's own list,
> once such a list exists." (Or, just delete the first
> sentence as it's not needed.)

I'll come up with a better alternative.

Thanks,
Lars