Re: last call discussion status on draft-iab-2870bis

Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Thu, 05 March 2015 04:37 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F0711A901E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 20:37:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable
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 M8Q9zzzpLdvO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 20:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74A931A8FD6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 20:37:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1425530230; x=1457066230; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Qbzxn8LBGlwiWLV0CmgYfp+qgN5x8sxXwMuGWVRkcl8=; b=eSZYdFNGy/E+klPhavtUfZQ+4lVxIfeZSYVwektux/vl49kX+B2s1Sf3 TEK/VbkHehS4ly+1FsCAY7KVKwq+7o7MLecSWQht3NyUZkEya4YdwQQLk ULos+V3feNza3dA/YXRBv5mnbIZ56ugxRXRXs5cx+DCLs4YJy2YbPMvEg Q=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7730"; a="198432561"
Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 04 Mar 2015 20:37:10 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,345,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="854139771"
Received: from nasanexm01b.na.qualcomm.com ([10.85.0.82]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 04 Mar 2015 20:37:01 -0800
Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (10.80.80.8) by NASANEXM01B.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.82) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 20:37:00 -0800
Message-ID: <54F7DD6B.4000902@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 22:36:59 -0600
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: last call discussion status on draft-iab-2870bis
References: <20140520204238.21772.64347.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <500031A0-DF45-409E-AACB-F79C32032E38@viagenie.ca> <4B545BEB-EA0E-4BA8-A45E-15AF12CDB1EC@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B545BEB-EA0E-4BA8-A45E-15AF12CDB1EC@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8]
X-ClientProxiedBy: NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32) To NASANEXM01B.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.82)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0iH4k0_jFd7BGi7o3zy-yvn6qI0>
Cc: IAB <iab@iab.org>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 04:37:14 -0000

On 3/4/15 9:43 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I wanted to come back to the status of the discussions.
>
> We have an ongoing discussion of the changes Marc made on the -02. My read of the feedback is that the update has done the right things, but:
>
> 1) Paul Hoffman’s clarifications&  editorial changes seem useful, but I would like to hear what others think.
>    

I think Paul's suggested change to the first paragraph in section 1 is 
spot on. Now that RSSAC has completed RSSAC001, perhaps something like:

OLD
The operational requirements are defined in [RSSAC-001]. This
document defines the protocol requirements and some deployment
requirements.
NEW
This document only defines the protocol requirements and some
deployment requirements; the operational requirements that were
defined in RFC 2870 are removed. Operational requirements are
now defined by the Root Server System Advisory Committee of ICANN
and are documented in [RSSAC-001].

And then remove the second paragraph of 1.1, which becomes unnecessary.

> 4) I’ve also received feedback from IESG members that the text about moving 2870 to Historic in Section 1.1 could be problematic. While I’m not sure that is necessarily the case, I think this draft merely replaces 2870, so I am not sure we need to say anything more.

Yeah, I'm one of the folks who thinks "Historic" is unnecessary (and 
potentially a pain). The fact that this is obsoleting 2870 is 
sufficient, and all it really needs to do is replace 2870 in the BCP 
series by adding "BCP: 40 (if approved)" to the top. I'd just make that 
change and strike section 1.1 entirely.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478