Re: [ippm] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Tue, 27 April 2021 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 906823A1E53; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 OlIJ27jxd6RH; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F7783A1E4F; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k124so30718089vsk.3; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=i0HRLqdrZL00vpyTNBNtovAGG5JfA5BtHzhpi2WIdF4=; b=PcagQpa7h+88AAkbtoiQy+pctLYXWb/+QChLZ1IWk9413ChOGHXy2i/XsU4cK7fog6 A/rFbje8ZsuCZgoYQ5P2WWxEXu7iT9aeHMfjn5eQav8NIj7beH9/atzelWt+jQ65SXbg sR4GXlnJcAhjcQUUsuMASB4DuCkwcsKCe+joeFkMzDoCFwGDoSAGK85bQ/boq1wUTXrK Ooq5dIlU19uqJQ1kASk4pVqUTt1E83BiPYo8SkiXaVRHvykA+6xl9x4eGvR9JvLhtAvZ BoMvWHip68GjSvbabKSWwsrzSrjjygStJMcLU/Dl7oiYD8rS+mLqZFX0Ne5oNBiS/Wvc gQFw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=i0HRLqdrZL00vpyTNBNtovAGG5JfA5BtHzhpi2WIdF4=; b=rgV8X1VTMKzrFVtUFCKOQIjWwICuPo7Lq67ZxZ5IO7jUSkEwzUIa5ILxVT7iKeTFOi bDiHpYAH/c38Bev1KDKOvKds48Qhq8napSnshXxBJoMCEEoXXpg8yjSOIsaGlU5s6dpv N4jYwvKP30tZRjwYOlbgDkxANn1+rl4ReODZ3WMXT/n4Oz4O3J9PX7HPR1jSUlwrWPRg +5MWpchvix5A9suJMTg7Sq1VfrCwYM96nqreyA/FSx3TVfD5UEqJPLGrhYRuBD2SJd+F Sh7RxfwD2CUW3h2X1D7VXvsLXV9f6WdyXHaEiluPZRzwRs9McfUttO2SAcUf9O2izHdl b+Nw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532BG7qkcT4NaCVeAIJxrPEmquaWQObgzK6wJbhWg2xHMNxuuryb 4CNFnSFn0gUqx+0QX0lDvTC+YnCWlJal7UeS8/4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwu4WRCOhr2STl4Fl/pi/6pOTX5+hCK6asWti9Mq7qIHBL5M0hA/L+wWZpGlCtvnqhdUsUsajGb0kI2aRFEOpM=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:c483:: with SMTP id d3mr20209697vsk.54.1619553693819; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:01:22 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <>
Cc: The IESG <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Al Morton <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009d669205c0f9ba3d"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 20:01:43 -0000

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:54 PM Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <> wrote:

> My comment wasn't about the registries themselves, which can have any
> policy you like, but rather this specific sentence about creating new
> sub-registries in this group.  I don't think I've ever seen a declaration
> that sub-registries can be created in any manner other than publication of
> a new RFC.  So what I was really asking is whether the sentence I cited
> here is even needed.
> *…FB: Thanks. Got it – and sorry that I did not catch the rhetoric nature
> of the question. We can of course remove the sentence – but IMHO it doesn’t
> hurt either, but just states the obvious as you say. If you ask to remove
> it, we’ll of course get rid of it. What would you suggest us doing?*

It's a non-blocking comment on my ballot, so I'm not insisting on a change
here.  I just think it's superfluous, and I subscribe to the theory that a
document is done "not when there's nothing more to add, but when there's
nothing left to take away".