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

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

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. - [phone]