Re: Gen-art telechat review: draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-17

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

On 12/2/14 11:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Hi, Robert, and thanks so much for the re-review.
>
>> First: (For Barry as sponsoring AD and shepherd):
>>
>> I think you might want to say more about how this and the related PWG
>> documents are being handled cross-organization.
>>
>> An RFC that normatively updates a document under some other organization's
>> change control is an unusual thing. Usually there are parallel documents
>> coordinating this. Is there such a parallel PWG doc this time?
>>
>> Why aren't there RFC variants of the PWG docs (we've republished other
>> organization's documents in the RFC series before...)
> When you suggest saying more, are you suggesting saying more in the document?
I mostly meant the writeup - I expect there will be IESG folks with the 
same questions I had.
But see below.
>
> This document is updating and augmenting the earlier documents that
> were published by the IPP working group, when it existed, and this
> document is under IETF change control.  It does reference documents
> from PWG, that's true, but I don't see anything remarkable about that:
> we've done it often.  As the Permanent URI Schemes registry is Expert
> Review, this could have been done through a PWG document, but the PWG
> wanted IETF review of this document, and the document did benefit
> greatly from that.  I think the right thing happened here, which is
> why I AD-sponsored it.
>
> Mostly, the reason the IETF isn't republishing the PWG documents is
> that there's no current interest in the IETF for IPP, and the people
> who care about IPP are over at PWG.  Getting a new, secure URI scheme
> defined correctly was important, and we've done that.  But there
> wouldn't be any real value in republishing the PWG documents.
>
> Do you think we need to do/say more about this now?
The document says:

    This document updates:
     ...
    c) IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP Version 2.0 Second Edition [PWG5100.12], by
       extending section 4 'IPP Standards' and section 10 'Security
       Considerations'.

This RFC-to-be is updating an IEEE-ISTO PWG document, and that seems
exceptional enough to warrant mention about how the organizations
are coordinating that update.

Maybe it would help to be specific about _how_ this document is updating
that external document?

>
>> version 17 improves several aspects over 16, but there are still reference
>> issues reported by idnits.
>> The most important ones to fix are the Missing Reference issues it calls
>> out.
> All of the "missing references" are only notes in the "change log"
> section.  They don't apply to the document now, and the section will
> be removed by the RFC Editor.
Ok - thanks - I hadn't spotted that.
>
> There are two reference notes that still apply:
>
>>    -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ASCII'
> That's to the ANSI spec for ASCII, and is fine.
>
>>    -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2566
>>       (Obsoleted by RFC 2911)
> That is intentional; it's in the list of IPP versions, and is marked
> in that list as obsolete.
>
> Barry