Re: [mile] early AD-review of draft-ietf-mile-template

Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Wed, 09 May 2012 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
X-Original-To: mile@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mile@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E889421F846B for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 08:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.246
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.246 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.353, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8p6IsHXwHDgb for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 08:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B5121F8418 for <mile@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 May 2012 08:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB35D9310; Wed, 9 May 2012 17:47:24 +0200 (MEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id DYRhlmBCfy8i; Wed, 9 May 2012 17:47:24 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (cust-integra-121-161.antanet.ch [80.75.121.161]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: briant) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B4BFD930C; Wed, 9 May 2012 17:47:24 +0200 (MEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <4FAA81D2.8050802@ieca.com>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 17:47:23 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B037668C-B6FA-486A-B1A2-FB6F04F4FFC6@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
References: <4F999FB4.5070403@ieca.com> <4DE7695F-C053-4676-A313-DA08652082C6@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <4FAA81D2.8050802@ieca.com>
To: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: mile@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mile] early AD-review of draft-ietf-mile-template
X-BeenThere: mile@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange, IODEF extensions and RID exchanges" <mile.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mile>, <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mile>
List-Post: <mailto:mile@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile>, <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 15:47:27 -0000

On May 9, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Sean Turner wrote:

>>> 12) A.8 and A.9 and I guess all appendices in this draft, should we require that they explicitly be marked as normative parts of the document?
>> 
>> A.8 and A.9 are weird, in that they're appendices within an appendix. Examples are definitely informative. The XML schema should be normative; however, technically, I would presume it's the schema that goes into the IANA registry (which, of course, in the normal case, gets taken from the schema in Appendix A of an extension document) which is normative.
> 
> So I guess adding a sentence in A.8/A.9 to say something like "When the draft is produced this Appendix should be marked as normative" and "When the draft is produced this Appendix should be marked as informative" would work for me.

Okay, that makes sense. (As I've already submitted an -04, would it be okay to hold this for -05 pending other IESG commentary, presuming there's nothing else that needs to be done before then?)

Cheers,

Brian (author hat)