IETF Logo Mail Archive

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> Tue, 07 June 2016 08:13 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 1041212D179 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 01:13:42 -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 06vsiYKhtfVN for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 01:13:40 -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 007AC12B078 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 01:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9D7BDF9; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:13:37 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
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 qw-rn-Hezm7A; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:13:36 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.210] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE8D7BE25; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:13:34 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1465287215; bh=o1tMwo45qNjvr0Y0lHaqf1Z0We1A3ln0bhIzeUuJTpM=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=J78WLVRlGNqueITfyl4U3dqoRvyspDtYn8XTV/2z0Ah21qpbdqBOGmGDFjLgcEgHN 0ZuhW9p6Q0ZZvjbGKkeD6dAievG9riD9Orrzpa7W0VgUeiCSI2dzJqKp2jje9NrFz1 KuWwLazPYjqK+VUpCvcmBCADmWt1GpJ/m8DaqfeY=
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: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
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> <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> <1A2D67F2-7A5B-41BD-8F81-E0CFF8DDECB0@sn3rd.com> <CALaySJ+w_2Vcr_dtifKJtsWCMnYLx-RGcqZhiz0ob8hWSONBYw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVC8Nk=YXnkV+3wXTH+kx5iWCZh_GOC3dzj0-30=+7BCHA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <5756822E.3020109@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 09:13:34 +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: <CAC4RtVC8Nk=YXnkV+3wXTH+kx5iWCZh_GOC3dzj0-30=+7BCHA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms000205000206080606000704"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/t9HpbwXLewE8ntVFYML9U3JVDu8>
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: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 08:13:42 -0000


On 07/06/16 02:22, Barry Leiba wrote:
> OK, I have new text to propose for the paragraph in question (sorry:
> it makes it a bit longer) as a result of this discussion.  Thanks,
> everyone, for putting in your comments.
> 
> Stephen, and all, how does this work?:

Still not my fav thing but I agree it matches the discussion
so I'll clear that discuss point based on this or similar
text.

S

> 
> 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.
>    For registries or registered items that are no longer in current
>    use, it will usually make sense to leave the references pointing
>    to the old document -- the last current reference for the obsolete
>    items.  The main point is to make sure that the reference pointers
>    are as useful and current as is reasonable, and authors should
>    consider that as they write the IANA Considerations for the new
>    document.  As always: do the right thing, and there is flexibility
>    to allow for that.
> END
> 
> Barry
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email