Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 24 May 2016 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 E3BA412D6D8; Tue, 24 May 2016 05:48:37 -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 Z-bSDl9s40rR; Tue, 24 May 2016 05:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22f.google.com (mail-yw0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f]) (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 D7B5512D6C0; Tue, 24 May 2016 05:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id x189so14199180ywe.3; Tue, 24 May 2016 05:48:36 -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:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ddUNbcAiei65Rp6MmZQAd58Uzs2gX0ZWc+eR3Tzh0Xw=; b=vREiK+4h2dACezBTE/K48l+zjnJIOSCGDciRn77xcOfLPjJGRouQN5d9TM5WoCKAED XgslP4K/gC9wmuV0kFdnNgQgAwvatJcrxWPqWsxnlsL7HwdFavXQF0QyvskKRfqUCCJO 9Fo0kb06WM5A+EU6y4/EWrnv7zr8F8EBiHMOceQJQOnIj2C+AVlZO3dBlOKh/5dFe/RD iBr3VVI/loVJAqdHzg96x3T0lXdutcAwX6jlZ7YhCdGUvtUziSfwQ+krz+3bEuyvfdJe pDzvEX2RxvPwSUGNQdueLvyry08hnsSxcZXBFoU1M6hHHMyon6+mNHV1jhiPJa+Ghjk2 Qwzg==
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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ddUNbcAiei65Rp6MmZQAd58Uzs2gX0ZWc+eR3Tzh0Xw=; b=TOfaiq0ktHOG1uI07nL9k2BQj3I2pGsp/cREt7GYrr+294eF/IsJQW8lkBEfa6pjcP ntCN5503wiJJZAQ0lQLXtpMWrzBLWKQBpzQJq6Kj1tC1d1sKMARfTHMcNeYn/wpp5HS3 TeJxtA1Pnf7cTju5BWKc607RoLGoKIpRYlg87M5+RMh9rFAUQAbd+N1ziN19/ci09rJL wL722YehZ1Je0E9KGQy6xqyJS4AFckssKZMCcj9BFayuy51Sa4ULpRe25M5O6Ns05i7E DjrwKilheAp8Gq59j6wFgkaOHM5CzZPx1a1biuOA1nUxN3Vygu04JLTDSc6g1gn04JDF V8Pg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJDYv1AP2HiBD75UBKIB43A31XROv2tEPIh2qtBCvLP7hHpg+pMtxI9vYrjEKVD75pDuun3v3Ql0518Ow==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.13.235.143 with SMTP id u137mr2274535ywe.257.1464094116060; Tue, 24 May 2016 05:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.83.12.82 with HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2016 05:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <007601d1b58b$79f3afb0$6ddb0f10$@gmail.com>
References: <007601d1b58b$79f3afb0$6ddb0f10$@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 08:48:35 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: d_7FzJr0BQNe4JXGrpPVkN-DEg8
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+5jr3k2R7ovpy8FWqqKp0U-1PnXzYi1n5Esdy2MLZsPA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/toFGPECJ2DuKppvS0hsspIQIENc>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis.all@tools.ietf.org>, 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, 24 May 2016 12:48:38 -0000

Hi, Roni, and thanks for the review.

> I am wondering about the lack of normative language for example in section
> 4.11
>
>    “When reviewing a document that asks IANA to create a new registry or
> change a registration policy to any policy more stringent than Expert Review
> or Specification Required, the IESG should ask for justification to ensure
> that more relaxed policies have been considered and that the strict policy
> is the right one.”
>
> Is the “should” normative here?

Perhaps you're confusing "normative language" with "2119 key words":
text doesn't need 2119 key words for it to be normative, and this
document quite intentionally does not cite RFC 2119.

The example you give is a perfect one to show why we're not trying to
shoehorn key words that were meant to give instructions for
interoperable protocols into a document that's giving advice for
writing and interpreting IANA Considerations.  The sentence above
means exactly what it says in English: it's advising the IESG, but it
is ultimately the IESG's decision.

Barry