Re: Revision of RFC 7302

[Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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
>