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 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@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 34F2E12B05B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:45:06 -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 jUiXRv5FgLLS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x233.google.com (mail-io0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233]) (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 8C0C212B04D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x233.google.com with SMTP id k19so70044398ioi.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 11:45:04 -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=VIl4dcvvbHpsSo8EV1AwFO5+kf9z3wI033G5uaqbX/0=; b=XD8P9Aw+rBmLFgsOwiIDw1o058bx7AEkX4T98DekxMZ0x/oTc8X+RqgPDjsiXQPDxn QjjtAae+i3Kifh04HBgPzjLpv2kGi6lno1m2YWpQbOFoufKKWsHoTZy0L2CUXYd7+YTo AmiMfWmM1lFTiQgkrhq0iZ9JRwqAYs0b/ciDFppL2X9vM5djuKD2F5YS492zNih1uyaG mwbtfeEIH2zFJT7ndxouKvTOpEw3yxHeqzYIbJ0DuodezE8o0Z3Umhmd2mbk1aN5mKVF /B2RS4r/hwy6lK66VFbRyl7BDSkJxfbO5GF0lqdoYKWoLnustqOF/jz7xX7eGnJOFSB/ lkzg==
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=VIl4dcvvbHpsSo8EV1AwFO5+kf9z3wI033G5uaqbX/0=; b=mZiknB2k83dDmUsbPmKA4RlvuSG1mhuf42+FTcbeHOgMILvg5ATToNRn9n4STGWZu5 Lc9o7zWO2qcRnT+pNV/JdN1uohZ6ZmM//Z4w6iSBM9+f9cQ8I85YuLnM0YWYR5UsTmkR UeT/eoFjipf1k5NAnjcVvtAkdK1OAOlDUr1KtYBCDruga3sTw6Rizd/nLqzmRx+Qp6Rt +MyOtN/KrA8icJYlpna45CgBLbKuRM6aN6xFalpEiq1z+X9NHAlU7HMYi3udn1cL1DSz S0CDIfEQ6esLFxbzCdwZME4uBGp15ffNi00Szdra4cG1goKCF/MPmmJ53bCz4wWjr7Tw /A3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLbvaVonrricXkoMfwnLX9iQXdRpi1P2ds/H4yCqrt3MifFWehCUDR3g3K19ydcCuE8Icv2OmbRg+OJfQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.19.16 with SMTP id 16mr1623782itz.76.1464979503768; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 11:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.140.87 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEHzvVOq_1L2ukX-OcPGkVFgR2OOD5puLMBJGif3a=Hzaw@mail.gmail.com>
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>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:45:02 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ZEBdD86XcC6Q-bDCcmj4ICW98oU
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVC6sKnYQS3mOay8-rSLQ0+U5mYGVhBbSSD=0xNX6dt2ng@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: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Y0FlC0ICZ93MLSL9liE0GOoa0Gw>
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 18:45:06 -0000

Hi, Donald.

> It is also possible that a code point is being obsoleted by an RFC bis
> document but is retained in the registry, in which case you want the
> reference for that value to be to the obsolete RFC where it is
> specified.

Ooh, yes, that's certainly correct.  The current text handles that by
saying "for any registries or registered items that are still in
current use."

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

Barry