Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-12.txt

Barry Leiba <> Tue, 05 April 2016 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A56D712D769 for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 09:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TR59HCc6ohmc for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 09:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1901012D761 for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 09:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g3so23538553ywa.3 for <>; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 09:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=4CadfECHLRNraHD7Obm1X2v/jgPueqZIu2ha3g3N/PU=; b=tNWNrPlnKunwYs6WAq3DufbqQ87lYqo8xCeBurpioP9wBHusppImD9nCJocZOyE6eO wUDCvP169W2TgSYoTyT1L5V3pMIei0zQBjJAp7IfrK1nzNK4HFnt7+RrmFWe7n1NP4c7 0B9+a3mMX8yFr4LBN77EgGhMtdxE0TNvhNgdZ410FGvWbn9mBdAHapH91GmqyIyif1HS qsbVI85q7PmS4/rfbKCCxTCi0Ayj0Ba8JV5acNUp56lz9cmp/fYTNUvRu5F1WiB1XwbG 0/S1imkL5g/wNpV3hG8SHgxOmFklFoCoH05BqIRVYTQ8iKOO6+LNqDr8vaY3zt35JRWO RkyA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=4CadfECHLRNraHD7Obm1X2v/jgPueqZIu2ha3g3N/PU=; b=NVohu04FRWAF0bxzqAfVuTjPq3GFXms9ez43YLzlWFzTNg08csUR23Mlu6nx1wediL t+7YVQUXgKKW0NyG54Fj6Knjb/O69vSu9Q3h+a2DiGOaxbctR9QntX8wOIK+TAovrYx1 EBY72auUBdd8aFxt6bCWO4FV+7wdHMCMNh1JU53sODec2CsKBb82fe5vR/Th865JT3kf 9+xL3ET8qThEnXGghUX5eiVTS9rWae3FdSp4gWrYMAW/h1VBB646HcNHc006/8kQqukB ccbNuAAxMvRcl5OzHJ6TwjD1vfszMldQhUOr4dMHoYbyISFAhm+HxwCV+C/DCLT0QK7I 9Tjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIeC14lMhRI7gaNjq64ciNZcQKTbtHCq7JiuHPcn46q64hjVRJa1Kc192Sv6TcT6suTiI7UpTKqxQqx5g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id u129mr11577015ywa.162.1459874522347; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 09:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 09:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <049e01d18f4f$904a45b0$b0ded110$>
References: <> <049e01d18f4f$904a45b0$b0ded110$>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 12:42:02 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: P6ctW_0-SkGKfjfbPbOrEX9vlkE
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-12.txt
From: Barry Leiba <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 16:42:12 -0000

> Thanks for resurrecting this document. It's been a while and IIRC the document
> was somewhere in the IESG process post IETF last call. You seem to have made
> some pretty substantial changes: I wonder if you could post a summary.

That'd be really difficult at this point, though one way you can
discern what I've done is to look at the old IESG ballot.  I addressed
pretty much all the comments there, save a few that I disagreed with.
And there is, of course, the diff tool, which should mostly help.

> wonder whether the Shepherding AD could let us know whether this will come back
> for a further IETF last call (I can relax and read it later) or plans to go for
> approval with only IESG sign-off (I need to read it urgently and scream if there
> are issues).

I've also asked Terry, who is now the sponsoring AD, to decide whether
a new IETF last call is needed.  It will certainly need a fresh IESG
ballot and a new telechat appearance at the least.  Whether the
changes are substantive enough to need a new last call is something
that I, myself, am of two minds on.

> FWIW, I noticed that section 1.2 now has some text in double square brackets
> that seeks to (temporarily?) describe what material should go on the first
> version of Can I suggest that you
> make the RFC-to-be stable and future-proof by converting this to a description
> of a minimal subset of information that should be on the web page in the first
> and all subsequent versions (i.e., information that should be on the page,
> period) and then you can remove the brackets.

Indeed; that is the intent.  I wanted to get the text out for review
and further processing while I work with Michelle on getting the
initial page populated and posted.