I think we can remove that. Best Regards! -Haibin
> -----Original Message----- > From: P2PSIP [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carlos Jesús > Bernardos Cano > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 9:46 PM > To: Barry Leiba; The IESG > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's No Objection on > draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) > > 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 _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
