Re: [Idr] Working group adoption call for draft-snijders-idr-deprecate-30-31-129

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

Oppose

We all know what deprecate means which, based on recent discussions of
other topics on this list, means we are using many divergent
ones in our assessment of this I-D.

'deprecate' is a technical term in the processes of the IETF.  You need
to define it, or better, use the existing definition.

That definition is in
 draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-18
which therefore MUST/SHALL be/is REQUIRED to be a Normative Reference,
and yes, that means waiting for that to become an RFC before this can
advance; which interaction I see as a necessity.

Otherwise, we haven't a clue what we are adopting.  Well we have, but it
is about a dozen different clues.

Likewise, but not so critical at this stage, having an RFC that starts
' This document requests IANA   ..'
will look, well, not very sensible.  If you believe in what you are
doing, then I would like you to state it as a fact.
'This memo changes the status of ... in the IANA Registry to
'deprecated'

And what you have at present sits oddly with the IANA Considerations.
Usually, the latter says
'IANA is asked to ...'
which is edited by the RFC Editor
'IANA has ...'

Yet you have an IANA Considerations of
'IANA has  ...
Back to front, IMHO.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "John G. Scudder" <[e-mail]>
To: "Jeffrey Haas" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "IETF IDR Working Group" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 4:20 PM


> On Nov 1, 2016, at 10:53 AM, John G. Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 2016, at 10:40 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> 1. Do we actually need a draft published to request IANA to block
out
> >> allocation of these code points?  If so, we're going to end up with
a number
> >> of trivial drafts for these corrective actions.  I'm interested in
hearing
> >> the IESG's opinion on this point.
> >
> > IANA did specifically request an RFC to reference although they
stopped short of explicitly saying "if you don't promise to give us a
document, we won't do this action". I have asked them to clarify and
will report back, but I suggest that for now the WG should assume that
we do actually need to publish draft and progress it to RFC.
>
> Update: Michelle @ IANA confirms that they do require RFC for
deprecation from a Standards Action registry but agrees there is no
documentation of this requirement specific to deprecation, they've just
inferred it from the requirement to assign one. She says she'll bring it
up on the Thursday IESG telechat.
>
> Again, for now the WG should assume we do need an RFC.
>
> --John
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr