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

Peter Saint-Andre <> Tue, 13 June 2017 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39671293FF; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=T/lkOs0q; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=XGVWALfp
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xBhQteNAjcsd; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 542C8126DFF; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A58206EF; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:06:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1 ([]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:06:59 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=hB4uaFt2wfOw2mDpYL +dCR4nQSEwdI7BF3/NVOgXihk=; b=T/lkOs0q86keMoM3gu8pTOHMweJzMdBXTu 3ZzrGHM0VnmNdhOOzLxlkFIOUJ5ouiK2qiEyr0bxi0bG+iEsznhQOmPA7OafGV/k H34TyQWNX8MAnK8xOQ/OV+5hZKnXzIL/7w/NuTkZf+2o1d6S8y9MaNQ4AtFOnlrt DVNpDSoToZcdEJ8/CKEcufjh6p2hzq7Vqx/xnL/GjY00fk4NFr9MZ8L8Dr8g7vir 3T5YXvKtnvPRGKnXgaZ9Yi3XtsUhP3VSLY1F9nENrHoUxErPFn0JmmQrUK+2rImB LNkC7XOYq2lf8Y/ccKDXk6ubLszkVuR80uTczhCrtsyl7MoK4W/A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=hB4uaFt2wfOw2mDpYL+dCR4nQSEwdI7BF3/NVOgXihk=; b=XGVWALfp LgJjuPBnBL4uWX9N6564baN+R4m1ZQwaD8jecFtwzw36f+w6JhFbyjkltYrCgGUF 0MKhdHmAKIV7VACEmCVWV8+JmeXCGhHVnT+yY6wA/1Au58G6YULV9q+Et0XAHfvE wGYFTW1UZSm2IeI3Jy3onzFQWfYCagcJDizDHhLgWZ60TFnqU+6IMSAcr2qlDseZ 2Ud/e9SFZg7x5vo58KeiThNsfyh4nDprpcQd/IW+4mZfNN1U6EgiMk7B7aVBkkyS MK5BfPOdien5sPIfa664gQ8CzCVkRZrmORy2ORor/KL6TweN5c8Zt/lkCmkJCTV0 i0d1O69OZqFPdA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:E3BAWVmfMiTh0Od5rTUBN6NP_SgTHcqp2hTy2jy1yhq0oT9ji46z2g>
X-Sasl-enc: NgOQrhrbjtz3rLRwypQ+D1eoK3K/0xQwCFs6IwCeSCY9 1497395219
Received: from aither.local (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0AF1C7E865; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
To: Ben Campbell <>,
References: <>
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 17:06:57 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [precis] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 23:07:02 -0000

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.)...

> - 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.)