Re: [regext] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> Wed, 02 February 2022 00:55 UTC

Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
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 06CB53A18B3 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:55:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=viagenie-ca.20210112.gappssmtp.com
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 nzpdZ6U_-e7M for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:55:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf31.google.com (mail-qv1-xf31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f31]) (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 5D6853A18B6 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:55:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf31.google.com with SMTP id o9so17575843qvy.13 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 01 Feb 2022 16:55:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=viagenie-ca.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=wVTHJzyOu7yUjDtohpHySoK1ZOjgQipqit6zGRYh4eI=; b=mx1G/CXqqw0ROYqOCxDa1a7lDpfZAULM3vv11JoisQO38S4oW/a5Xo0OeJzNnyPoqq pu5u3E374e23gploluPhYKbi1UEk2EWAkWneV/aZAoeJbYej+L66Kd3FboYWeW9zl7CR 8hEz2cyzH0o1FxcQiNrIbptvZ+x4U1Yb9MshgT+YOiUJfF2BTtPOJqDLNtDg8W7HMZTk TnJi/DM4ES/vgwcyX0LOuWeLfGKipSvMObMFqlm4K8JhzD9dgMP/FrP0Y/oq3Q4978tS FP90uDY6Oi5QkXCpHBqp/Q+UMHQbV9R7eEjlDJYCbdZiXu9CUMKj3vKVtWcCK5RGaPYn Soew==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=wVTHJzyOu7yUjDtohpHySoK1ZOjgQipqit6zGRYh4eI=; b=d523aOktU4j51jTowMszfuSOgpTZPPNWkxldI5IynAAI63lxIGxfuw2GbpxevQus64 hJKelYrg+zVpMzMJkYlzVxIdOL02ldMH1xBOJUfGsYlecx4MlK7J3fOe1vGmRq8697t2 97erz6J6RYXfS7izdpBYXlEyKcCZ0V3PCrR7vnkVNuqFcONgQyQfOMH6kVhY4ItMW08/ /OSkPWhgNj86ogBmNyDcJ5pCKbTTvNXhkL0Izs9lzI5gvstUMkCW6ZPTsSc83QAZfBiw idW/kJqsUr+lP4I40DbM9UQavCkBIEs+s2tI6L7PJhqRpmsUOBfp2sTyQYBOVc+D1a43 fztg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530cQU5Km1ltjB/NnrP0ggTxwUJslFSC5prfxVnJgSjaPR69BKuv jLY1j2FHKsVB5WEuOZXYYBGXNg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyrVo8rTFvvvn6dfKjugT1DHn9caMyiSdlOyCnzB2oes3xIbsRU0Yzszr6UkpzjxEomK8Vk3A==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:27e6:: with SMTP id jt6mr24390538qvb.59.1643763323130; Tue, 01 Feb 2022 16:55:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (modemcable161.124-162-184.mc.videotron.ca. [184.162.124.161]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t11sm11233017qkm.77.2022.02.01.16.55.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 01 Feb 2022 16:55:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Message-Id: <BA98C819-3443-4532-8B68-65B53C65F75A@viagenie.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7CBC11A3-34B1-41D3-9BE5-7857CCB3B0BA"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.60.0.1.1\))
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 19:55:21 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZhoEkOPfVkrvzUwOdcrF+s64-Xwidx1ytzmVeOiU+iow@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, regext-chairs <regext-chairs@ietf.org>, Jasdip Singh <jasdips@arin.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis@ietf.org, regext <regext@ietf.org>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
References: <163819990725.32639.11542591547609459875@ietfa.amsl.com> <CEA8B232-D206-4056-95CB-53B156F10A80@viagenie.ca> <CAL0qLwZhoEkOPfVkrvzUwOdcrF+s64-Xwidx1ytzmVeOiU+iow@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.60.0.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/V0bhTMRWBg14ZXpygA8qoN4REPQ>
Subject: Re: [regext] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 00:55:31 -0000


> Le 1 févr. 2022 à 19:51, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 4:05 PM Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca <mailto:marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>> wrote:
> > 1. -----
> > 
> > FP: Please replace references to RFC 7234 with draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-19.
> 
> <MB>I have a hard time thinking to replace an RFC reference to a draft in a document that would become an Internet Standard. Moreover, I think the reference is more about “please look at ways to cache data” more than a hard requirement. So I disagree with your proposal. The new -05 do not contain any change in that regard. So I’m looking for your reply if you still want me to change the reference</MB>
> 
> Since draft-ietf-httpbis-cache has been approved by the IESG, I think Francesca's suggestion is appropriate.  Otherwise, this Internet Standard will be published with a reference to a document we already know to be obsolete, which seems like an odd choice.  Changing the reference won't delay publication of this document since the referenced document is already in the RFC Editor queue anyway; it'll ship before this one does.
> 
> I can have the RFC Editor make this change prior to AUTH48 rather than delay it since it's otherwise an approved document.
> 

Fine by me!

Marc. 

> -MSK