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

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 12:48:34PM +0000, t.petch wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Job Snijders" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Gert Doering" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>; "IETF IDR Working Group"
> <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 11:27 AM
> > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:37:46AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:32:45AM +0000, t.petch wrote:
> > > > So we have a definition that has been in use for three years, in
> the
> > > > context of IANA, which is, to quote,
> > > > "  Specific entries in a registry can be marked as "obsolete" (no
> longer
> > > >    in use) or "deprecated" (use is not recommended). "
> > > >
> > > > I believe that this I-D cannot be understood without reference to
> that
> > > > definition, hence my opposition to an I-D that leaves the
> interpretation
> > > > of 'deprecated' up to the reader (who may assume that the SMI
> definition
> > > > is appropriate).
> > >
> > > So what you're saying is "add a link to that reference, and all is
> good"?
> > >
> > > Why is that interfering with draft *adoption*?  Sounds more like
> wordsmithing
> > > for the then-WG document before WGLC to me, not a fundamental reason
> to not
> > > accept the draft.
> >
> > No, it appears that Tom is saying that IDR cannot deprecate codepoints
> > until IETF/IANA have developed a deeper understanding of the word
> > "deprecate".
> 
> Job, Gert
> 
> I think that that may go beyond what I have said.
> 
> If draft leiba-cotton becomes an RFC soon, then a Normative Reference to
> that would be my preferred option, so that IDR is on the same page as
> IANA and the rest of the IETF.  Note the leiba-cotton is in state IESG
> Evaluation AD follow up for 163 days with Pete Resnick holding a DISCUSS
> and Terry Manderson as AD so it is Pete (or Terry) you need to light a
> fire under.
> 
> I did however mention another possibility in my first post, of putting
> in our own definition so that it is clear what is intended (if only to
> those wishing to adopt the I-D).  Given 20 years of (different) usage in
> SMI, which some readers will be familiar with, I think we need a
> definition so include one!  We could just lift the existing text from
> leiba-cotton then, if that does not change between now and whenever
> leiba-cotton becomes an RFC, we will be in line with them - which is
> good.
> 
> I think that IETF/IANA developed all the understanding that is needed of
> the meaning of 'deprecated' in 2013 and all we have to do now is to use
> that understanding.

Thanks for your feedback, I'll respin the draft into a -02 version based
on this discussion and submit it later today.

Kind regards,

Job