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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

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?

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?

> 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.

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