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

Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> Fri, 03 June 2016 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.com>
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 E92ED12D697 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 06:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 4wgA59ayHL_v for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 06:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8698D12D694 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 06:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B6720D66B1; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:32:53 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ORPjy9vqFgia; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:32:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dhcp4.sobco.com (vpn3.sobco.com [136.248.127.174]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 20FD620D66A0; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:32:49 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-12.txt> (Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs) to Best Current Practice
From: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <575185A2.70908@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:32:48 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EDA3CD0D-BDCA-4AC6-AA67-318670080338@sobco.com>
References: <20160419141640.31545.54742.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <575185A2.70908@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BZy-SPN8nk1Gt9EoKItW3AVI11M>
Cc: 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 13:32:59 -0000

> On Jun 3, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:

…

> The issue iirc is that if say RFCxxxx is obsoleting RFCyyyy
> must the IANA considerations in RFCxxxx say that all the
> registries that used point at RFCyyyy need to be updated to
> point at RFCxxxx? I don't think that needs to be done (but
> it can be done). I think Barry's position, and the text of
> the 5226bis draft say that it has to be done.

seems like a good make-work requirement with little actual benefit

of course, if the details of the registry changed with the replacement RFC that is a different case

Scott