Re: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT)

"Songhaibin (A)" <haibin.song@huawei.com> Wed, 03 February 2016 01:11 UTC

Return-Path: <haibin.song@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39C21ACF56; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:11:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Vnx_KnSX7Nak; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:11:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EA451ACF1C; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:11:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CHW43716; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:11:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML702-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.99) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 01:11:13 +0000
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 01:11:12 +0000
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.112]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 09:11:07 +0800
From: "Songhaibin (A)" <haibin.song@huawei.com>
To: "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRWtU1cO/XfcRTn0Og15JpAgPJo58YRGoAgAFFTUA=
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 01:11:06 +0000
Message-ID: <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F65DB8A20@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <20160129203946.14671.39449.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1454420780.3763.9.camel@it.uc3m.es>
In-Reply-To: <1454420780.3763.9.camel@it.uc3m.es>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.145]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020201.56B153B2.0192, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.112, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: d6200e6cd607cc7c157461d7f9054005
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/QL9hNgwJUlVtCVK3rCQJkDjbyoU>
Cc: "p2psip-chairs@ietf.org" <p2psip-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org>, "p2psip@ietf.org" <p2psip@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/p2psip/>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:11:22 -0000

I think we can remove that.

Best Regards!
-Haibin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: P2PSIP [mailto:p2psip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Jesús
> Bernardos Cano
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 9:46 PM
> To: Barry Leiba; The IESG
> Cc: p2psip-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org;
> p2psip@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Barry,
> 
> As document shepherd, I think I have to apologize because now that you
> brought up the issue of "Updates RFC6940", I agree with you that there is no
> reason for that. @Authors: can you remove that or comment why this is
> required?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Carlos
> 
> On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 12:39 -0800, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
> > this introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.
> > html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---
> > COMMENT:
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---
> >
> > For Sections 9.1 and 9.2, I wish there had been some working group
> > discussion that resulted in the decision to make the registry policies
> > Standards Action.  It seems that some softer policy, such as "IETF
> > Review" (which might allow for registrations from Experimental
> > documents)
> > or Specification Required (which would allow review by a designated
> > expert of a non-RFC specification) would work OK for this registry,
> > and I would have liked the working group to have actively considered
> > that.  But that ship has sailed for this document and this working
> > group, and it's not likely to box us in for this case, so this is now
> > a non-blocking comment.  Thanks for the discussion we've had on this
> > point.
> >
> > In addition to what Ben has already said...
> >
> > One of the things that idnits calls out is this:
> >   -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6940,
> > but the
> >      abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
> >
> > I believe it's not a problem that the abstract doesn't mention it, but
> > one *reason* the abstract doesn't mention it is that the rest of the
> > document doesn't mention it either.  It's not at all clear WHY this
> > document updates 6940.  Why?  (This is in support of Ben's comment, as
> > well as being a question to the shepherd.)
> >
> > The idnits tool also mentions the pre-5378 disclaimer, and this has
> > been resolved, so the disclaimer should be removed when the draft is
> > updated.
> >
> > I strongly agree with Ben's comment about needing explanations for a
> > number of SHOULDs (and SHOULD NOTs) in the document.  RFC 2119 says
> > that for SHOULD, "the full implications must be understood and
> > carefully weighed before choosing a different course."  Without any
> > explanation, there's no way for implementors to understand the
> > implications and to weigh anything, and I tripped over that quite a
> > number of times during my review.
> >
> > I agree with Spencer's comment that we don't usually strong-arm IANA
> > with
> > 2119 key words.  It's a small point, and I don't think IANA are easily
> > offended [ :-) ], but "IANA is asked to create" is a better approach
> > than "IANA SHALL create", and so on.
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> P2PSIP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip