On 18 August 2011 01:27, John C Klensin wrote: > 4409bis-02 reflects a lot of comments that neither Randy > nor I would have made on our own. I'd have to go through > the document to tell you which changes we made that I > don't like (and don't consider that a good use of my time)
Just in case I looked at the diffs back to 4409 before posting a "+1" for the Last Call here, and I found no obvious problems. The BCP 97 rules are perfectly clear, the "double downref" for RFC 4954 attracted my attention. Not touching the status of this RFC, because it could result in another round of "let's finish off CRAM-MD5" is only my personal POV, but I digress... > 6186 just does not seem to be mature enough. Okay, I cannot judge it, and in fact I have not read it, but I certainly understand it when authors hope that their work gets a reference in related RFCs; a kind of "spamvertizing" I'd like if it is not too obtrusive. > As far as my "not liking" 6186 is concerned, it just isn't > true. If you searched the mail archives into fairly ancient > history, long before RFC 2782 [...] Admittedly I didn't search old archives, finding the thread where I suggested to promote RFC 4409 to STD was bad enough. But I recalled that the IESG was seriously NOT interested in obscure kinds of "NNTP discovery" in a memo about NNTP URIs. > But my disliking it or being opposed to it? Nah, not a > chance. I just wish I had it in my MUA (sorry, Cyrus :-( ). Thanks for info, I wasn't aware of that. > As an editorial style matter, RFCs that specify protocols > tend to not reference supplemental documents that make > operational recommendations. The references run the other > way and the other way only. I would consider a reference > from 4409bis to 5068 an exception to that general principle. I also wasn't aware of that general principle, and thought that "getting the credits right" is only a chronological question: If A and B address topic X, and B is published after A, then B should have a reference to A. The "protocol" vs. "operational" consideration makes sense, but again, I didn't know that general principle. Certainly no big issue, I just felt like adding my own "MISSREF" after looking at the two "MISSREFs" posted by others here. -Frank _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
