Re: [sidr] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-11: (with COMMENT)

Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net> Sat, 11 March 2017 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <sra@hactrn.net>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31B8512949F; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:11:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 pGDyvI6MY7yg; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:11:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from khatovar.hactrn.net (khatovar.hactrn.net [198.180.150.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A1891294A8; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:11:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from minas-ithil.hactrn.net (c-73-47-197-23.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [73.47.197.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "nargothrond.hactrn.net", Issuer "Grunchweather Associates" (not verified)) by khatovar.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7A041398E; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:11:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from minas-ithil.hactrn.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minas-ithil.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826945AC986; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 17:11:18 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 17:11:18 -0500
From: Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
In-Reply-To: <148812023477.2888.8486186818190857881.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <148812023477.2888.8486186818190857881.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Message-Id: <20170311221118.826945AC986@minas-ithil.hactrn.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/mnp_jMCDeFJ71cHoVnfOnzamOHg>
Cc: Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, sidr-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, sidr@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sidr-publication@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:11:23 -0000

At Sun, 26 Feb 2017 06:43:54 -0800, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I still think lack of details about versionning and what requires (or
> not) to bump the version number is a mistake.

I added a sentence stating that incompatible changes to syntax or
semantics require a new version number, which seems kind of obvious.
Beyond that, it's pretty much impossible to say whether a change is
compatible without knowing the details of a particular proposed
change, so I see little to be gained in hypothetical discussion.

If you need something more than this, please send text or point to an
example of what you want (and, with respect, a hint at what it's
intended to accomplish), because at this point I do not have a clue.

> RFC 2616 (HTTP) got obsoleted, please reference the latest version.

Oops, sorry.  Done.

> In 2.5: is the list of error reasons extensible? If yes, should you have
> an IANA registry for them?

No current plan to extend the set of error reasons.

> In Section 5 you should reference this document (and not just section
> numbers), as IANA registrations cut & pasted to IANA website as separate
> files.

I assume you meant section 4, since I don't think IANA publishes
Security Considerations.  Draft -11 had already added [[RFCxxxx]] to
the media type template in the IANA Considerations section, per your
earlier instructions, and there are no section numbers in the media
type template.  Am I missing something here?

Given the impending dreadline, I posted -12.  If this is close enough,
cool, otherwise tell me what to do and we'll fix it.