Re: [HOKEY] New one-week WGLC limited to 5926bis IPR

Glen Zorn <> Fri, 23 March 2012 07:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664C921F84B9 for <>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RUTm1LClXukj for <>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ECF321F84B6 for <>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so1309893wgb.13 for <>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ypTJNK12Yuny1lvxS3nTkaeGQQh65c/0UWQHNZ0Yps4=; b=FUCEU936p1jQ1bfLkh+oxggaYk3j5sYQcanmBx+1/W8qBzQzS4N3xp0DkLzDc4dO4f TC4b3U6Ug9jz4IqqHcMHKZ8aBEVd6KitBkshH6uyYtjVqEqyeyfG5/MutR+taS7Ufml2 10yT/0Js7QWwRQ/ZhymMDdoWRC3B/WKVbwkNTPEdvqCXs4kM2bCeg560xqqjjcRvcOUu y3lBtvn1K9c3WKl8QuXo2SBPMPajxaUOoKjxSzrwlNM5rG/bAlVYrp6YLo6eqpIbljw3 h1hE0T1pYaAhYgd+za2GvVl9xYDSfIRaa1bf0ONJFeM0qQVWM+vwWA87Zp+arAcq8xPA pN6A==
Received: by with SMTP id c28mr6177880wej.57.1332486140376; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id l5sm11434528wia.11.2012. (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:02:16 +0100
From: Glen Zorn <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] New one-week WGLC limited to 5926bis IPR
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: HOKEY WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 07:02:22 -0000

On 3/22/2012 4:39 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hi,
> So IETF LC is done for this and I think my comment below
> and the IANA considerations were the only things that came up.
> Could the authors please handle my comment below (and check
> I-D nits [1] as well which has a couple of things you may
> as well handle at the same time).

-07 (yet to be posted) has no problems w/I-D nits except for a spurious
warning about a missing references and the incorrect error about the
normative reference to RFC 2104.

> For the IANA considerations, IANA asked what to do about the
> existing registries in 5296 and I at least didn't know. The
> IESG (I asked) felt that best would be to repeat the definition
> here and ask IANA to make 5296bis be the reference for those
> registries. (See some text by Barry Leiba below that makes
> this clear.) If the authors/WG/chairs are ok with that the
> can you do it? If you want to do something else, please tell
> me what, and I'll do a quick check with the IESG that that'll
> not cause a bunch of discusses.

Personally, I think it's a really bad idea for people to use RFCs as
references for protocol numbers; the IANA registry is the authoritative
source, repeating a snapshot of that source in a document that  will
never change is at best confusing.  I would much prefer just adding
something like "For the current list of assignments related to ERP, see
the IANA registry [EAP-NUMBERS]." where [EAP-NUMBERS] cites


> On 02/21/2012 05:22 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Not about IPR as it happens, but caused by looking at that:-)
>> I just happened to be looking at this and I've only now
>> noticed that there is actually no reference for RFC5296
>> in the body of the document, which I guess isn't quite
>> right. (Yes, the meta-data is fine, and yes the
>> abstract says it, but without a reference.)
>> Sorry not to have spotted this before but I bet that
>> it'd generate a nit-picking discuss so maybe better
>> to head that off before we go there.
>> I'd suggest adding a sentence to end of the introduction
>> saying something like:
>> This document updates RFC 5296. [RFC5296] The main
>> changes are foo and bar.
>> Or maybe something like:
>> This document contains a set of minor updates to
>> RFC 5296 [RFC5296] based on implementation and
>> deployment experience.
>> Or whatever is actually the case.
>> And then add the (informative) reference of course!

OK, so during the IESG review of RFC 3588bis, we got nit-picking
discusses about referencing RFC 3588 because it would be obsolete soon.
 Seems like a no-win situation to me...