Donald, On Jan 17, 2013, at 8:09 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have a wording problem with this as below: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:57 AM, The IESG <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider >> the following document: >> - 'Formally Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Message Types' >> <draft-gp-obsolete-icmp-types-iana-01.txt> as Proposed Standard >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> [email protected] mailing lists by 2013-02-14. Exceptionally, comments may be >> sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please retain the >> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> >> Abstract >> >> A number of ICMPv4 message types have become obsolete in practice, >> but have never been formally deprecated. This document deprecates >> such ICMPv4 message types, thus cleaning up the corresponding IANA >> registry. Additionally, it updates RFC792 and RFC950, obsoletes >> RFC1788, and requests the RFC Editor to change the status of RFC1788 >> to "Historic". > > I'm OK with deprecating these ICMPv4 message types. But this could be > said to "clean up" the IANA registry only, in my opinion, if the > entries were removed, which would be a bad idea. But the draft does > not remove these entries or simplify the registry, it annotates the > entries. I consider the wording "clean up", as used here, to be > misleading. > > I suggest the second sentence of the abstract be changed to "This > document deprecates such ICMPv4 message types and annotates the > corresponding IANA registry entries." and that corresponding changes > be made elsewhere in the draft where "clean up" is used. > I think this is a good call out and support the proposal, "annotate" being more precise. Does it also need to qualify usability aspects of an annotated registry (i.e., the value of a bit more organized up-to-some-point-in-time)? I think implicit is fine, but thought I'd bring it up. Thanks, -- Carlos. > Thanks, > Donald > ============================= > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > [email protected] > >> The file can be obtained via >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gp-obsolete-icmp-types-iana/ >> >> IESG discussion can be tracked via >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gp-obsolete-icmp-types-iana/ballot/ >> >> >> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >> >> >
