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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 03 June 2016 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 420B112D5F3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 06:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.727
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.727 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 wpZEoKsKW9tk for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 06:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D85F12D585 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 06:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61FCBBE38 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:26:59 +0100 (IST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PbukC64AhQPB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:26:59 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C3B9CBE33 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:26:58 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1464960419; bh=8bjpX231/JfW1CBkezVWkoLZdnHwVhPugggNDr+tt54=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=aG5Yi5unnEgaMku+5uMf5RgqKl/C0GJH762Be7D5/sKh6iYbWS8CnVaM41fKc94Co sLly9ViL4qOakdwRuv6RV2LPTvnVMs9mNL0/hMtBGBRGGOOaltFGkQb9jgEe142MvQ c1HQFux2QVUohkD/RcT7jmGUFJR0XIUlD8yBnaxY=
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: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20160419141640.31545.54742.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <575185A2.70908@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:26:58 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160419141640.31545.54742.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms030808080209060402070204"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/s6IVo3FZKDtxuZADor7PsxaoFkI>
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 13:27:02 -0000

Hiya,

On 19/04/16 15:16, The IESG wrote:
> 
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs'
>   <draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-12.txt> as Best Current Practice

I have a discuss on this document about one point where Barry and I
have different recollections of the outcome of a discussion from a
few years about about bis documents. As there were only a couple of
people who took part in that discussion we figured it might help to
get some more folks' opinions.

The discuss point in question is:

  "Section 8 says: "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." We had a nice big discussion about this back a few
   years ago and there were two sides to the argument as I
   recall.  On what basis can the authors now say that this is
   quite so clear? The strong counter argument to this is that
   developers do not start from IANA, they start from RFCs."

The issue iirc is that if say RFCxxxx is obsoleting RFCyyyy
must the IANA considerations in RFCxxxx say that all the
registries that used point at RFCyyyy need to be updated to
point at RFCxxxx? I don't think that needs to be done (but
it can be done). I think Barry's position, and the text of
the 5226bis draft say that it has to be done.

What do you think?

Ta,
S.