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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 06 June 2016 11:36 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 1EB1C12D128 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 04:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham 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 eOXE4ka6uqqo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 04:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C08312D0A5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 04:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1b9sp7-000CPN-VE; Mon, 06 Jun 2016 07:36:01 -0400
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 07:35:56 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.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
Message-ID: <A08077E849A342506589FC2D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <469534D3-00B3-4295-B710-4B88B04D18A1@att.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.c om> <CAC4RtVC6sKnYQS3mOay8-rSLQ0+U5mYGVhBbSSD=0xNX6dt2ng@mail.gmail.com> <5751D5E8.6030803@cs.tcd.ie> <CALaySJ+3jorRopPKNHjy19fo1v1=dZEHarMJ1-gB89vNbkFxaw@mail.gmail.com> <5751ED8B.4020508@isi.edu> <9b7a1b04-f767-517a-bd84-28c030695dfc@gmail.com> <57521D24.40700@cs.tcd.ie> <CAC4RtVBMA42Ke_m6ked9GtUTdGSdg-Jjxp5ibiWBDdG+p2y-2w@mail.gmail.com> <57548D7B.5020702@isi.edu> <CALaySJL_aUv751Z9xdSWib4vbnqK-ymzg7gLWqk8+Q1uo_MYRA@mail.gmail.com> <469534D3-00B3-4295-B710-4B88B04D18A1@att.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oVP2Rwqn-ZcpHXapAhj84pe2rjM>
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: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 11:36:10 -0000


--On Monday, June 06, 2016 10:18 +0000 "HANSEN, TONY L"
<tony@att.com>; wrote:

> I think there is consensus on this: The authors are expected
> to do the right thing. In most cases, but not all, the right
> thing to do is to update a reference when the previous
> reference is obsoleted. One size does not fit all.

Yes, but I think two other questions have been raised that now
should be addressed:

(1) Should advice to IANA about registry creation and content
include a recommendation as to whether citations from a registry
should be just "as designated by authors/registrants" (typically
"most recent") or should also contain a historical back-thread?

(2) Should registries be explicit as to whether the information
in them is self-contained (i.e., that citations from them are
for historical or contextual interest only) or abbreviated
pointers to definitional documents (i.e., those looking up a
parameter as expected to consult cited documents in order to
understand it and its use)?

    john