Re: Last Call: <draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-12.txt> (Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs) to Best Current Practice

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 03 June 2016 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B79612D96B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.727
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.727 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 UCP0CB2mNMva for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72D5D12D96F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACAF9BE29; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:54:16 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wWNm_RI3cY46; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:54:15 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.210] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CD8DEBDD0; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:54:14 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1464983655; bh=/13haeW15zHXvoGdZNX6PJ5ZqywfgP4NjLnVIPGQFEs=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=2oMKXNqFD/BxpTe4zpnRtWWTA2bYWbjWOKepA8Uu0DLw86CxemO87I/KtCj6Sip8c 4vAcQjwCBglrPECgmLcIu5Dd2T3diz9W4cjkqr5UDBAPWvS0nJtj9ICvtPNnjsXhWx Ujj/GT3Gx1bKi7SiTeouYIniub/tYRSZQsLunnng=
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-12.txt> (Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs) to Best Current Practice
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <20160419141640.31545.54742.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <575185A2.70908@cs.tcd.ie> <EDA3CD0D-BDCA-4AC6-AA67-318670080338@sobco.com> <CAC4RtVBngkPc-yQ8P0qyvwsG9L4qjDMDPZ5xwa4gR84=ov4iUg@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEHzvVOq_1L2ukX-OcPGkVFgR2OOD5puLMBJGif3a=Hzaw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVC6sKnYQS3mOay8-rSLQ0+U5mYGVhBbSSD=0xNX6dt2ng@mail.gmail.com> <5751D5E8.6030803@cs.tcd.ie> <CALaySJ+3jorRopPKNHjy19fo1v1=dZEHarMJ1-gB89vNbkFxaw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <5751E066.8030802@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:54:14 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+3jorRopPKNHjy19fo1v1=dZEHarMJ1-gB89vNbkFxaw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms000808080508090802050408"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-apKb5dw_Y2OU4lX8m7QUc02Q6E>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 19:54:21 -0000

Hiya,

On 03/06/16 20:47, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> Would anyone object, and would this address your concern, Stephen, if
>>> I should change the text like this:
>>>
>>> OLD
>>>    If information for registered items has been or is being moved to
>>>    other documents, then, of course, the registration information should
>>>    be changed to point to those other documents. In no case is it
>>>    reasonable to leave documentation pointers to the obsoleted document
>>>    for any registries or registered items that are still in current use.
>>> NEW
>>>    If information for registered items has been or is being moved to
>>>    other documents, then the registration information should be changed
>>>    to point to those other documents. In most cases, documentation
>>>    references should not be left pointing to the obsoleted document
>>>    for registries or registered items that are still in current use.
>>> END
>>
>> That is better, but I'm still worried that it'd be used by well meaning
>> folk to force authors to do more work than is needed for no real gain.
>>
>> My preferred OLD/NEW would be:
>>
>> OLD
>>    If information for registered items has been or is being moved to
>>    other documents, then, of course, the registration information should
>>    be changed to point to those other documents. In no case is it
>>    reasonable to leave documentation pointers to the obsoleted document
>>    for any registries or registered items that are still in current use.
>> NEW
>>    If information for registered items has been or is being moved to
>>    other documents, then the registration information should be changed
>>    to point to those other documents. Ensuring that registry entries
>>    point to the most recent document as their definition is encouraged
>>    but not necessary as the RFC series meta-data documents the relevant
>>    relationships (OBSOLETED by etc) so readers will not be misled.
>> END
> 
> Well, and *that* is so fluffy that I strongly object to it.  I think
> it's bizarre to directly say that it's unnecessary and you don't need
> to worry about it.  I can't think of any other place where we so
> casually accept stale references.  For example, we flag I-Ds that
> point to obsolete references and ask for justification to leave them
> in... otherwise, they're updated before or by the RFC Editor (usually
> before).

xml2rfc handles updated references. You're arguing for authors to do
a load of manual grunt work for IMO no benefit. So I do think those
are quite different.

> 
> I think the change I've already proposed is a reasonable compromise.
> "In most cases" isn't "in all cases".

I accept that you think that:-)

Do you think "in most cases" would have meant you and the author
concerned would/would-not have had that discussion a couple of years
ago? If you would have had it anyway, then I don't think "in most
cases" is usefully different from the OLD text.

And to go back to the nub or the argument, I don't think we have IETF
consensus for that (but you do). I note that so far we only have people
disagreeing with the current draft text.

S.

> 
> Barry
>