Hi Barry, As document shepherd, I think I have to apologize because now that you brought up the issue of "Updates RFC6940", I agree with you that there is no reason for that. @Authors: can you remove that or comment why this is required?
Thanks, Carlos On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 12:39 -0800, Barry Leiba wrote: > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut > this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria. > html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > COMMENT: > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > > For Sections 9.1 and 9.2, I wish there had been some working group > discussion that resulted in the decision to make the registry > policies > Standards Action. It seems that some softer policy, such as "IETF > Review" (which might allow for registrations from Experimental > documents) > or Specification Required (which would allow review by a designated > expert of a non-RFC specification) would work OK for this registry, > and I > would have liked the working group to have actively considered > that. But > that ship has sailed for this document and this working group, and > it's > not likely to box us in for this case, so this is now a non-blocking > comment. Thanks for the discussion we've had on this point. > > In addition to what Ben has already said... > > One of the things that idnits calls out is this: > -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6940, > but > the > abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. > > I believe it's not a problem that the abstract doesn't mention it, > but > one *reason* the abstract doesn't mention it is that the rest of the > document doesn't mention it either. It's not at all clear WHY this > document updates 6940. Why? (This is in support of Ben's comment, > as > well as being a question to the shepherd.) > > The idnits tool also mentions the pre-5378 disclaimer, and this has > been > resolved, so the disclaimer should be removed when the draft is > updated. > > I strongly agree with Ben's comment about needing explanations for a > number of SHOULDs (and SHOULD NOTs) in the document. RFC 2119 says > that > for SHOULD, "the full implications must be understood and carefully > weighed before choosing a different course." Without any > explanation, > there's no way for implementors to understand the implications and to > weigh anything, and I tripped over that quite a number of times > during my > review. > > I agree with Spencer's comment that we don't usually strong-arm IANA > with > 2119 key words. It's a small point, and I don't think IANA are > easily > offended [ :-) ], but "IANA is asked to create" is a better approach > than > "IANA SHALL create", and so on. > > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
