Re: [ietf-provreg] Re: RFC4310bis document writeup

[James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>]

I concur with Scott.  The main goal of referencing RFC 3757 was for the
description of the SEP bit, where in RFC 4034 it references RFC 3757 for the
same reason.  

-- 


JG 

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or
Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus
may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written
consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If you have received
this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a
copy.  Thank you.


> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:30:44 -0500
> To: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>, Alexey Melnikov
> <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
> Cc: <iesg@ietf.org>, EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
> Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] Re: RFC4310bis document writeup
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
>> [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of Olafur Gudmundsson
>> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:34 AM
>> To: Alexey Melnikov
>> Cc: iesg@ietf.org; EPP Provreg
>> Subject: [ietf-provreg] Re: RFC4310bis document writeup
>> 
>> On 04/03/2010 6:54 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>> Hi Olafur,
>>> 
>>> Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> 
>>>> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that
>> the document 
>>>> satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not
>>>> enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all
>>>> formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
>>>> type and URI type reviews?
>>>> 
>>>> There are few nits due to the ever changing boilerplates and tools
>>>> not being available when BP changes :-(.
>>>> 
>>>> I found one minor error in section 4.1. cites RFC3757 but
>> should use 
>>>> the document that obsoleted it, RFC4034.
>>> 
>>> If I remember correctly I've asked authors about this
>> before starting 
>>> IETF LC and they said it was intentional.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> IMHO I do not understand why they want to treat RFC3757
>> differently from
>> RFC3658 as both are obsoleted by RFC403[345].
>> 
>> If the RFC3757 reference stands then I need to change my
>> write-up to say there is a possible downref as Obsolete RFC
>> is used and editors will have to provide downref justification.
>> If there is particular text in RFC3757 that the editors want
>> to cite, an explicit informative reference can be added but
>> the main citation is changed to RFC403[45].
> 
> Changing the reference would be fine, bit I'm not sure which of the new
> documents is an appropriate replacement.  None of them seem to describe
> the function of the SEP bit in the same way that 3757 does.
> 
> Scott
> 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
> send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se
> 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se