Re: [precis] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-07

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 14 June 2017 00:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B26712EB80; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 17:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.881
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 U8jWToYXHTyF; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 17:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39061129AD2; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 17:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.63] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v5E0lWf7031590 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:47:33 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.63]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <e686827b-2048-e345-6f0f-c77c4449a479@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:47:33 -0500
Cc: draft-ietf-precis-7613bis.all@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <04E8BF73-876F-4EEF-B36A-F08180D61727@nostrum.com>
References: <219DBC10-0046-4429-B170-1B075484CA91@nostrum.com> <e686827b-2048-e345-6f0f-c77c4449a479@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/precis/74kbgDZXMR0Cu1n7h6Z7NwYa6lU>
Subject: Re: [precis] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-07
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/precis/>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:47:36 -0000

> On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:06 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>; wrote:
> 
> On 6/13/17 4:07 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> This is my AD evaluation of draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-07.
>> 
>> I think this draft is ready for IETF last call, which I will request
>> shortly. I have a few comments, all about references, that I think
>> can be handled along with any last call comments.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Ben. ———————
>> 
>> - Should the references to RFC 7613 in the IANA considerations be
>> updated to point to this document? (Some _say_ “this document”).
> 
> Yes, they should. I actually made that change the other day, along with
> cross-references to 7564bis instead of RFC 7564 (etc.)...
> 
> https://github.com/stpeter/precis-framework/commit/58e4b072f9838fe4cc454594bff2e6e64daaf73b#diff-3956fe36c870ed54d75e6a05394dd92f

Excellent. Hopefully you’ve already fixed any comments that might come up in IETF last call or IESG review, too :-)

> 
>> - There are some citations to RFC 4013 and 3545 that seem to be
>> overtaken by events. For example, there is a statement that 4013 is
>> obsoleted by this document, when in fact it was obsoleted by 7613.
>> Please check to make sure that any such citations (and their
>> surrounding context) will still make sense when this draft is
>> published as an RFC.
> 
> Good catch - we'll clean that up. (The references to the older specs
> might be appropriate where we're trying to show the historical
> continuity of thinking on these issues, but not when we're talking about
> which documents this one obsoletes.)
> 

Perfect, thanks!

Ben.