[regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sat, 22 June 2019 01:29 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A56120282; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 18:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.198, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 paGrxAc3swBs; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 18:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f42.google.com (mail-io1-f42.google.com [209.85.166.42]) (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 97B71120299; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 18:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f42.google.com with SMTP id i10so17908iol.13; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 18:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=APWgA2UgWUrWgII+XE+jaa1LqCekFzU2XNK4LaK5PFc=; b=ehkOrD3zEYS88vy9alvNcGfx5uFPB/6ubVMWLmLiwzyfXvBWcndpvDM9vAxjp5WEuH 0xGau5gZuea+e9NRYWivu5YEKMxutwLZ1f9GMJ3TasrslU6luCHywAZSeScBd3u5Um0R v3RcDkGR85V0lwhIFYFx2r6Skshn47sMFZoDxI849/mELuSxmUVu1lBDRZaYJY6Ks2mY Lp/U8jX8nRnAvMIcdQMWGtalJldu3IFzSIWbrIte2TuIm05SP8h3Y4vbZp6D+7u/XoZB eGKLZG0+2OPXeJaFZ8q6R7ch80brmOKJ3/6rK0Rs8iCpUft6VlyZSNIMeZQpi1I6XRR5 dUcw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXSxHHmsNyCQ6ovBIUulaEAJcN0TrtYngFKRUVM14gRSiIlk345 aVtP+g/n+zGvJinULskJ9wnKas2D0U1JbqOMshecZlkp
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxJCj7esKyFhJc8U4gnV4+GnsQyLMg20M22geMHXf4Hk9h9d2sM9mGiHNRygWJWCzpvIurxtRyUha3P1rDHicE=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:b10b:: with SMTP id r11mr2903730jah.140.1561166944570; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 18:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 21:28:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJK1PSK_O0CKSVGqk2PzXyYKhLm81fKv+5_Oago8Npu9ig@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration.all@ietf.org
Cc: regext@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/F7hoSMvlh--PqJxIYUlee9vvDeE>
Subject: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 01:29:08 -0000
Hey, regext folks, This document had an AD review from Adam, a Gen-ART review from Joel, and a SecDir review from Russ, and went through IETF last call. All three reviews were responded to on the regext mailing list (by Jiankang and by Antoine), but there has been no revision of the draft to address the issues raised. That has to happen. While we're there, there's the issue of the Informational status and the registrant contact for the namespace: It's my understanding that this isn't specifying a standard, but, rather, is documenting an existing non-standard extension that is not expected to be a standard nor widely implemented. Is that correct? If so, the document should make that clear in the Abstract (briefly) and in the Introduction (somewhat less briefly). Also, the shepherd writeup doesn't help me understand why this is Informational, and it should: (from the writeup text, emphasis mine) "Explain briefly what the intent of the document is (the document's abstract is usually good for this), and WHY THE WORKING GROUP HAS CHOSEN THE REQUESTED PUBLICATION TYPE". You say the working group decided, but you don't say why. So: Please revise the draft to address the last call reviews, and also please add something to the Introduction (and possibly the Abstract) to explain the status of the document, making clear what the standards or non-standards status is and what applicability we expect for it. I'm putting this into a "Revised I-D Needed" substate, awaiting such revision. Thanks, Barry
- [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-bundl… Barry Leiba
- Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-b… Jiankang Yao
- Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-b… Barry Leiba
- Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-b… Jiankang Yao
- Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-b… Jiankang Yao
- Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-b… Barry Leiba
- Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-b… Antoin Verschuren
- Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-b… Antoin Verschuren
- Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-b… Barry Leiba
- Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-b… Antoin Verschuren
- Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-b… Jiankang Yao
- Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-b… Barry Leiba
- Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-b… Jiankang Yao
- Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-b… Barry Leiba