IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Wed, 03 May 2023 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E95CC14CF13; Wed, 3 May 2023 11:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oiOvDQi63zQW; Wed, 3 May 2023 11:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C538FC151700; Wed, 3 May 2023 11:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] ([47.186.48.51]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 343II04d056213 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 May 2023 13:18:01 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1683137881; bh=mMzdPsCYyPzdZU2K6YKQQT4TycnkUkBjGbiGKjutTCs=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=Dnb/96AwJg+BVclLdkNkcPgaNzZyjlt4EI7o1JW6ZDCs8Ye+yhPpxcgrU/9lOyPPv dAxMWUEMy5ZpOnahsIp5eKOrtqejJfm/8GnddCpq1o4XnjjzFJLdJOajMcHc6HE84U wia1F9AJ3a9/HWpbGIOahtz8Q+kITvdy2oEZePoQ=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.48.51] claimed to be [192.168.1.102]
Message-ID: <262bce2d-d87d-e674-dc18-bd849bfdcc16@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2023 13:17:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
References: <168262616619.49367.3270196433937406785@ietfa.amsl.com> <BY5PR11MB43373CE6CB76B9667F1C1C50C16C9@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <7EB31EDD-2587-4AEC-8FA2-A3BB9807D40D@juniper.net>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <7EB31EDD-2587-4AEC-8FA2-A3BB9807D40D@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/Zom_9Snpa3fDoSDFgJ-7XA4GTKY>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 May 2023 18:18:08 -0000

On 5/3/23 1:12 PM, John Scudder wrote:
>> On May 3, 2023, at 11:04 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 2) Please reconsider the link to the mailarchive in the RFC. Put it in the
>>> shepherd writeup or in the history in the datatracker as a comment (chairs
>>> can
>>> do this). Otherwise it adds to the list of URLs that we have to keep alive
>>> forever.
>> [LES:] I am open to whatever the chairs/AD think is appropriate. But very few people actually look at the shepherd writeup or Datatracker history. Having it in the document provides context for those readers who are curious as to why the bis changes were made. I don’t think it would be as effective if it were removed from the document.
>> I take your point that the URL may someday become stale - but if it did that would apply to the other locations as well.
>> The section in which it appears is informational only - it is not a normative part of the document - so I am inclined to leave it as is.
>> But again, happy to follow consensus on this.
> Yeah, I don’t see how adding another layer of indirection makes the problem go away. Perhaps it would be reasonable, though, to change the reference from a bare URL, presented inline, to an Informative reference, to the effect of
>
> 	[LSR-MAIL] IETF LSR Mailing List Archive, Tue, 15 June 2021 15:25 UTC, "[Lsr] Proposed Errata for RFCs 8919/8920”, and follow-up messages.
>
> I don’t know if there is a standard style for this kind of reference, but it seems like it might be a cleaner solution. It doesn’t provide one-click access to the mailing list thread, but neither do some other references, and it should be easy enough for anyone familiar with our mailing list archives or frankly, even anyone who knows how to use a search engine. Also, ironically the bare URL doesn’t provide one-click access either, because of how it’s line-broken in the txt rendering.
>
> Robert, Les, would that approach work for both of you?
Yes.
>
> —John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email