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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 03 June 2016 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 6816312D8D4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.198, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 U0R0WooRIJNa for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x234.google.com (mail-yw0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B64112D7EB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x234.google.com with SMTP id o16so90133127ywd.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=XtqbZ1Zy1ehB8UeQ+aLAHVIw0AgJNAY6BBUE89yIB0o=; b=Yo2FfR+wL0hvFSPR9Y0/+vBC7F4zYFIPqTohdlV+7KW/XMxBw5QI7MaFGvLY9USWpX 36hAhrAKBKjG+i4r0Q/oSIsU5j5YI8lma5nig7l+QaWsNWkCEU59EqziSC0cxw6Y4Nh+ wRkVEL0rN7uSRgT2h5NuRpfrOYA9BgrHKiv63JnKXK6LpbsQoYVXOh43j8iboII6onHs exAWfl9wyK6JteZe4rmFQ8TczICy8m+yhzBxZOxNQyd/wn4fG9s1u2ji4LH7bH/WmY4t DcnRt9CN98d6MAvhitg6AIESzHMFdVA549XFQuPgOluaagOSC52+SF3l/hBIO+2cEgfB uCQA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XtqbZ1Zy1ehB8UeQ+aLAHVIw0AgJNAY6BBUE89yIB0o=; b=mfagHCK+PWHot9+GxzsE90Nlnv7tTo4CXQhDKCz8YPlTLvBUAGBn69lnvol+tRH8K3 aUAcZChNcxc+B8tRTLXQ2vOx2YSvIJo3i5ojz33SxKn/77EeD1lxmQ2WrN5KT/eWBl0Y 18t02gCeuFA+K2aaELBmKZayhjGXENlKeipZu2e2jCx8HIm+DmP0T37qB9KVSyEJlQGG AC7Phlen9jYdxjzGrJYmuOJHRMSJKvoEbgAKZ7uJsRF0E3xjWyRgG4teQ5ZmwY4bkoto +oFUMmgMMwo8Lrx6PLLLtkyxoJqRCtc1h1VoTFyhXRNceRQMoa/vD5Z4ZgalGIkCCsuv KONA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tILl+NrH1ByQGA8SRqgkbvkcOBLhyPbQeLs93ZfHU868ZGM8U2rvurpGzvnWTdt66mc05dxGjDv7/QE3w==
X-Received: by 10.37.198.68 with SMTP id k65mr3350754ybf.134.1464983252598; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.83.37.6 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5751D5E8.6030803@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <20160419141640.31545.54742.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <575185A2.70908@cs.tcd.ie> <EDA3CD0D-BDCA-4AC6-AA67-318670080338@sobco.com> <CAC4RtVBngkPc-yQ8P0qyvwsG9L4qjDMDPZ5xwa4gR84=ov4iUg@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEHzvVOq_1L2ukX-OcPGkVFgR2OOD5puLMBJGif3a=Hzaw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVC6sKnYQS3mOay8-rSLQ0+U5mYGVhBbSSD=0xNX6dt2ng@mail.gmail.com> <5751D5E8.6030803@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 15:47:31 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Rw2QDcIqHvXCfVS1_RmIOSjKLtM
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+3jorRopPKNHjy19fo1v1=dZEHarMJ1-gB89vNbkFxaw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-12.txt> (Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs) to Best Current Practice
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WjZMCTHEFC2QFGLyX8v7RWhr-PM>
Cc: IETF discussion list <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 19:47:35 -0000

>> Would anyone object, and would this address your concern, Stephen, if
>> I should change the text like this:
>>
>> OLD
>>    If information for registered items has been or is being moved to
>>    other documents, then, of course, the registration information should
>>    be changed to point to those other documents. In no case is it
>>    reasonable to leave documentation pointers to the obsoleted document
>>    for any registries or registered items that are still in current use.
>> NEW
>>    If information for registered items has been or is being moved to
>>    other documents, then the registration information should be changed
>>    to point to those other documents. In most cases, documentation
>>    references should not be left pointing to the obsoleted document
>>    for registries or registered items that are still in current use.
>> END
>
> That is better, but I'm still worried that it'd be used by well meaning
> folk to force authors to do more work than is needed for no real gain.
>
> My preferred OLD/NEW would be:
>
> OLD
>    If information for registered items has been or is being moved to
>    other documents, then, of course, the registration information should
>    be changed to point to those other documents. In no case is it
>    reasonable to leave documentation pointers to the obsoleted document
>    for any registries or registered items that are still in current use.
> NEW
>    If information for registered items has been or is being moved to
>    other documents, then the registration information should be changed
>    to point to those other documents. Ensuring that registry entries
>    point to the most recent document as their definition is encouraged
>    but not necessary as the RFC series meta-data documents the relevant
>    relationships (OBSOLETED by etc) so readers will not be misled.
> END

Well, and *that* is so fluffy that I strongly object to it.  I think
it's bizarre to directly say that it's unnecessary and you don't need
to worry about it.  I can't think of any other place where we so
casually accept stale references.  For example, we flag I-Ds that
point to obsolete references and ask for justification to leave them
in... otherwise, they're updated before or by the RFC Editor (usually
before).

I think the change I've already proposed is a reasonable compromise.
"In most cases" isn't "in all cases".

Barry