Re: Revision of RFC 7302

Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com> Wed, 18 May 2016 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <pal@sandflow.com>
X-Original-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D987E12D538 for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 May 2016 07:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandflow-com.20150623.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 HX8pZHVTpvKU for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 May 2016 07:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x235.google.com (mail-ig0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235]) (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 42D1812D16A for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 May 2016 07:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x235.google.com with SMTP id qe5so91751303igc.1 for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 May 2016 07:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandflow-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=+QiYaD7VFx+weujZKIeMeuEjAVMhUOwIPNbfwknJUlI=; b=RfctZX7G9op7CuXJz9X3FlTIW71+YABnrcXkRhId6hywWuxaBt2DJ60bJHOvy66hSD z53l3s9wp42Nhdxkj2sz8KsFkDj02dajBWmObBEv0/X/uSg6l6NXcczgaEeXGGzaYABV rjOLW27rBRNQtrrS/BW7kSbKxgIn5BoQ7KLlM0Fwa7q/POfjrNnK7cIMH7nzjEJ9shSz AsWPI6i9WQ8FEdb++JPq9s/qxWIY43huP0ErTN/QiaigBRrp94huVW9i8O7E0v9xNnXi PJfbV0QSV+gM996FRbMuLgVHwkDVcrIgyFCGV14HUCCf4OTI5NTrzUH8snY61KvtBD1v 3MNg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=+QiYaD7VFx+weujZKIeMeuEjAVMhUOwIPNbfwknJUlI=; b=ATsljlVVmaZUGeeXgKpHQfmSPIpGy5ZVzPkcSIyROU55OJ3qIB0YjzHTsKw5kuhMya fPbtqNuYTk81zz+OMT7Bo+A5KAJIY4MaeZkzWgfvWcGMlW52it+07IzJXnH7axPLyEAI 7LaZdtQpaoSiO7SMj90Q84r98NZ/kTNPXozl4Dg/3lKTAlOqck0JSANXFYD9SFLhfpM4 Y+LgUDYZb0/iMPM2WPV+gCxSTmoMg/cM6i2g9OYltMB2uaBxEK/kJpaUSeRwPTlGu0yi dqyogSOpKFPV3ID4azw6mL6QwktmUCE26CdzqApUbRdMFJIN87J/WhdEEzAxPpCd2C/R UpGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXWIecFAr7KtwGg2iASafKbrDjNk7EOaRuMrhGir1ILrccFyL/4seIxrcW9K6brgw==
X-Received: by 10.50.62.20 with SMTP id u20mr5503418igr.52.1463583208583; Wed, 18 May 2016 07:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com (mail-ig0-f169.google.com. [209.85.213.169]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r81sm2806714ioe.36.2016.05.18.07.53.27 for <urn-nid@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 18 May 2016 07:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id qe5so91750795igc.1 for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 May 2016 07:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.50.128.20 with SMTP id nk20mr5297203igb.86.1463583207220; Wed, 18 May 2016 07:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.15.12 with HTTP; Wed, 18 May 2016 07:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <90968eb5-6fee-bc65-a3ae-ef8d0128a820@alum.mit.edu>
References: <CAF_7JxBSXo-EjC3-11Yop5W_Sgo4mWoPvb7SGxH90V9QVHPbUw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMD=ArH=Y+WxQ-SJ0m3Y3Ka-4pZQhtvifx5H9aAZUqv9XA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF_7JxBO29RGMSwvniEqTiidOFguZ=FQU99GaYTgHvdoSjVqKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMBCSp+PHnBOnu+Tim+DTK8j7vfNC1sXVTB2P_VxXqPhxw@mail.gmail.com> <90968eb5-6fee-bc65-a3ae-ef8d0128a820@alum.mit.edu>
From: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:53:07 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAF_7JxCueAUynHHcX8LqLvCyDfTdMS+WW48147qZOwQgSGnGoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAF_7JxCueAUynHHcX8LqLvCyDfTdMS+WW48147qZOwQgSGnGoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Revision of RFC 7302
To: urn-nid@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/251r4Z9TglTSjx5mjqH8GQDgsFs>
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>
Resent-To: @apps.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: urn-nid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussion of new namespace identifiers for URNs <urn-nid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/urn-nid/>
List-Post: <mailto:urn-nid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 14:53:31 -0000

Good morning/evening,

Please find a revised I-D at [1].

[1] https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-pal-eidr-urn-2016-01.txt

This revision is intended to address the comments raised the thread so far:

- the IANA registration version is rolled back to 1 since identifier
semantics and syntax remain unchanged
- changes from previous versions of the specification are listed
(informatively) in Appendix A, with a reminder to readers to use tools
such as rfcdiff for a definitive answer.

Given the limited scope of changes, I intend to submit to IESG by
Friday COB PDT unless further comments are raised.

Thanks again for the review!

Best,

-- Pierre

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>; wrote:
> On 5/2/16 4:34 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>>     If the "obsolete" path is chosen, perhaps there is a way to explicitly
>>     highlight the (very limited) changes, beyond the short description in
>>     the abstract?
>>
>> You can include an appendix with a list of the changes.  That's
>> non-normative,
>> but it would likely be consulted by anyone who wanted to simply check on
>> the
>> relationship between the two.
>
>
> The trouble I have with this approach is that a reviewer must either *trust*
> that the summary is right, or else must check that there aren't other
> changes. If I am doing a serious review I would never have this level of
> trust.)
>
> Doing the latter depends on the size of the document and how extensive the
> changes (even superficial ones) are.
>
> I would be inclined to first try rfcdiff between the two documents.
> Sometimes this can work if the changes are really minor. But more likely
> there will be enough superficial changes that the diff is a mess and you
> can't easily distinguish the superficial changes from the substantial ones.
>
>         Thanks,
>         Paul
>