Return-Path: X-Original-To: rswg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rswg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17743C14F60E for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2024 11:18:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.105 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=episteme.net Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sHELSkljJTdv for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2024 11:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE5E3C14F602 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2024 11:18:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [31.133.133.166] (dhcp-85a6.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.133.166]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4WRs9V22lwzXHDD; Sun, 21 Jul 2024 13:18:38 -0500 (CDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=episteme.net; s=mail; t=1721585918; bh=5Gw5dR5SFmA9oGU5sHc7DrE2snu7a+fz87/hsP+GZng=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=R8iqTMfC5h1TYbpF1Nyllbgel/2DEjr/IfezI96iIeWzEGUxT4IPYSQIqIdd6SGou eLbGAsEiLns069dON7j0K0BqTFJXGzjQjZ/ZXOtJuskihp76izOpkXK5elhcVyKzW/ FwLr8R2tv+LQRq0HiXQpO1JxPa4IXGvkm+UUoALA= From: Pete Resnick To: Paul Hoffman Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 11:18:35 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_302F404D-30FC-42F0-9158-22F4DF9B03E0_=" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Synology-Spam-Status: score=-0.1, required 6, ARC_NA 0, FROM_HAS_DN 0, RCPT_COUNT_THREE 0, TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL 0, MIME_GOOD -0.1, __THREADED 0, HTML_MISSING_CTYPE 0, TO_DN_ALL 0, HTML_MESSAGE 0.001, RCVD_COUNT_ZERO 0, FROM_EQ_ENVFROM 0, MIME_TRACE 0, __NOT_SPOOFED 0, MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM 0, __HDRS_LCASE_KNOWN 0, NO_RECEIVED -0.001 X-Synology-Spam-Flag: no Message-ID-Hash: HRRTHRULNK4JC7B3XRHCKOY2IVUPTGGQ X-Message-ID-Hash: HRRTHRULNK4JC7B3XRHCKOY2IVUPTGGQ X-MailFrom: resnick@episteme.net X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: Jay Daley , RSWG , Sandy Ginoza X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BRswg=5D_Re=3A_=5BExt=5D_Re=3A_Response_to_RSAB_Last_Call_commen?= =?utf-8?q?ts_on_draft-rswg-rfc7990-updates-10_from_the_RPC?= List-Id: "RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --=_MailMate_302F404D-30FC-42F0-9158-22F4DF9B03E0_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; markup=markdown Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit [Chair hat on] No need to bikeshed: Just soften the sentence to say "in the last few months of 2019" or something like that. Purely editorial. pr On 12 Jul 2024, at 10:07, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jul 12, 2024, at 09:04, Jay Daley wrote: >> >>> On 12 Jul 2024, at 16:15, Paul Hoffman >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 3) Section 1.3 (not related to terminology) >>>> >>>> Current: >>>> The first RFC to be published following the guidance of the group >>>> of >>>> RFCs described in [RFC7990] was [RFC8650], published in November >>>> 2019. >>>> >>>> Suggested (because the first RFC published was RFC 8651): >>>> The first RFC (by date order) to be published following the the >>>> guidance of the group of >>>> RFCs described in [RFC7990] was [RFC8651], published in October >>>> 2019. >>>> >>>> Or: >>>> The first RFC (by RFC number order) to be published following the >>>> the guidance of the group of >>>> RFCs described in [RFC7990] was [RFC8650], published in November >>>> 2019. >>> >>> Ouch. I (Paul) carefully checked this, but obviously did so >>> incorrectly. We'll go with the first version (8651). >> >> This might seem trivial, but I think it’s better to go with RFC >> number order, not date order, and therefore RFC 8650. The reasoning >> is because it’s more important to tell people at what point in the >> series the formats change, not precisely when the change happened. > > It looks like there were many other RFCs using the new format > published in October before RFC 8650. > > If the WG wants to go down this bikeshedding path, I would prefer just > to remove the reference altogether so we can focus on more important > discussions. > > --Paul Hoffman --=_MailMate_302F404D-30FC-42F0-9158-22F4DF9B03E0_= Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[Chair hat on]

No need to bikeshed: Just soften the sentence to say &quo= t;in the last few months of 2019" or something like that. Purely edi= torial.

pr

On 12 Jul 2024, at 10:07, Paul Hoffman wrote:

On Jul 12, 2024, at 09:04, Jay Daley exec-director@ietf.org wrote:

On 12 Jul 2024, at 16:15, Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman@icann.org<= /a> wrote:

  1. Section 1.3 (not related to terminology)

Current:
The first RFC to be published following the guidance of the group of
RFCs described in [RFC7990] was [RFC8650], published in November
2019.

Suggested (because the first RFC published was RFC 8651):=
The first RFC (by date order) to be published following the the guidance = of the group of
RFCs described in [RFC7990] was [RFC8651], published in October 2019.

=

Or:
The first RFC (by RFC number order) to be published following the the gui= dance of the group of
RFCs described in [RFC7990] was [RFC8650], published in November 2019.

Ouch. I (Paul) carefully checked this, but obviously did = so incorrectly. We'll go with the first version (8651).

This might seem trivial, but I think it=E2=80=99s better = to go with RFC number order, not date order, and therefore RFC 8650. The= reasoning is because it=E2=80=99s more important to tell people at what = point in the series the formats change, not precisely when the change hap= pened.

It looks like there were many other RFCs using the new fo= rmat published in October before RFC 8650.

If the WG wants to go down this bikeshedding path, I woul= d prefer just to remove the reference altogether so we can focus on more = important discussions.

--Paul Hoffman

--=_MailMate_302F404D-30FC-42F0-9158-22F4DF9B03E0_=--