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

["Songhaibin (A)" <[e-mail]>]

I think we can remove that.

Best Regards!
-Haibin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: P2PSIP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Carlos Jesús
> Bernardos Cano
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 9:46 PM
> To: Barry Leiba; The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip