Re: BCP97bis

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Mon, 18 October 2021 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A5513A17B3 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UaKSsqztW0qU for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::933]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB17A3A1713 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id i22so5590096ual.10 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wpqpbZ4ugWynq2hxcMk03qYsHBJOfu5964DC10JJ3UI=; b=Oz9YYukL05AnYQwT16kKABYO5UYVceyBIUNYb0Y1xotPluyu33ABRPy4T3eI7xMhOT BCrL+mquJ5wXs7XIcrqgo5JTHUq1NkDmBwbdgl/h7BPXSQkBE919lFlYTxFVhZy1uk6C PS7Ou8FZTeFL+AcZM42Zob200P8Z6IQsfZsJgBod1EGn1d1Sz6cRGf8eh8PSdyhj+11R ooLd4OoxBljPSoEw3LJb5zod/+UWCA8HIJw0sAoNi5upUlUuT/P4peRX6/P8VHf91cpp AOizo1BrCNM0mHzpLsVuz0TcXhnfM391rl5NDafLxP8sajD73da7L+ZxZrOgtycXOUcu xJ0Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wpqpbZ4ugWynq2hxcMk03qYsHBJOfu5964DC10JJ3UI=; b=LdaDtLzVzHNjHfZ+Dg6KCpZ6uVAe0lNwbyplq00C4FSkiYoTlpLlSSkSnwolj0OKOb NTOrFk9kQ2FNYO4e2C8+fXEizM9uwLQmofVb+Pm6fKScQ84KxothA9kLRe/PmG/w+KxN 3hxi5zeO7jpcLQC3J+j6RMTCw/S6ewZ8dbNdkeMTlWDCtdVa0d06rGM2VNQcBYmDR342 PzZqaM7uJ9uCeONkHLCJEjZUPga1VmuvAHYqaBVfY03nqdmv+1EN3iYjDZGo/agqshzG Mo9nFSTIAA653EMcwLAtfPbOkddQE3QvMSb1hl3RiZb63cKhMEFiAP873etHMY0caOXV Y/Qw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533CkvoJk18Ee+TZS5WL83kvtHMqrEvXULyXdsoYfXZvGKxP9ZqT lruetMLMGcnFTuQCyn2e3nFlyDp4PPGvXawS4OzVH/AgCCA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwMvcAtZfFoqk1My2mszoA8L3y0dhmcs7I/4Nk4zBkLhsgbJzvdVQdKzK4S3EOnIJ3pCHXgzVxqDJWgYB3qLkw=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:d38e:: with SMTP id b14mr29590556vsj.34.1634579126774; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:45:15 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: BCP97bis
To: tom petch <>
Cc: ietf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000356e7d05cea41c93"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 17:45:35 -0000

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 2:35 AM tom petch <> wrote:

> The terminology I find unhelpful; the document cries out for a section
> on Terminology.  In most places, I do not know what the document is
> referring to.  Thus when it talks of what must be in an RFC, I think
> good, I can ignore all this as it is up to the RFC Editor to add
> annotating text!  It may be of course that the text here means to refer
> to I-D, as at Last Call, as well but that is not what it says.  Likewise
> the word standard appears in many places.  Most on this list will know
> what a Standard is; is that intended or does it mean a document on the
> standards track which most on this list will know is different?  And the
> focus seems to be RFC ignoring the role of I-D in the IETF process.  The
> document introduces the concept of source document and target document
> for clarity and then fails to use them when clarity is called for.  And
> then most will be familiar with Normative and Informative; here the
> author uses normative and informative.  Are they intended to have the
> same meaning?  Who knows (apart from the author:-)?

Very little of the text here is changed from the other documents that
already comprise BCP 97.  Those definitions aren't there now; we generally
seem to know what those terms mean.  Perhaps the text expects familiarity
with RFC 2026 (a normative reference), which defines some of them, and the
rest are defined in this document ("normative" and "informative" are
described in Section 1.1, for instance) or in the Guidelines for I-D
Authors.  We could add a reference to the latter if people think that would
be helpful.

I'd be happy to add a Terminology section if we think it's needed, but I'm
wary of the risk of definitions here and those elsewhere diverging.

To me it is symptomatic that an example is made of a MIB when the IESG
> made YANG the standard for network management many years ago and the
> example would have exactly the same force were it to refer to YANG
> (RFC8407).

I have already asked for (and now received) some text to replace that