Yes Barry, I agree. Not everybody understands the background why it is an informational document and what it’s purpose is.
- -- Antoin Verschuren Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL M: +31 6 37682392 > Op 27 sep. 2019, om 17:29 heeft Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> het > volgende geschreven: > > Thanks, Antoin; I agree with your analysis, and I agree that the > contact info is fine as it is, given that. > > But this is also why I think it's important for the document to > clearly say that this is documenting a proprietary extension, and that > that is why it's Informational. Without that being clear, we're going > to get pushback from the IESG about a few things. So let's be very > clear about it. Makes sense? > > Barry > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:13 AM Antoin Verschuren <i...@antoin.nl> wrote: >> >> Barry, >> >> I have not reviewed all the comments yet, but I am only responing to this >> one: >> >> The SecDir review suggested changing the contact for the IANA registrations >> to the IETF, rather than the authors, and I agree: it should be “the IETF”, >> probably with the regext mailing list as the contact information. You did >> not make any change. Please do. >> >> >> This is incorrect according to RFC4741, and I have replied to the SecDir >> review on the list that it is as well. >> Section 2.2.1. of RFC4741 states: >> >> Registrant Name and Email Address: The name and email address of the >> person that is responsible for managing the registry entry. If the >> registration is of an IETF Standards Track document, this can simply >> be listed as "IESG, <i...@ietf.org>”. >> >> >> draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration is NOT an IETF Standard Track >> document. >> draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration is an IETF INFORMATIONAL document, >> and it is for a reason. >> The REGEXT working group did not consent that this draft produces a >> standard, and therefor refused Standards track stream. >> The REGEXT working group did allow the authors to document their proprietary >> EPP extension in an informational IETF document, and adopted the document to >> help review. >> This informational document only documents a proprietary EPP extension. >> >> Proprietary EPP extensions are allowed in the IANA EPP Extensions registry, >> with an informational RFC as one type of documentation, but they are >> registered in the IANA registry with the name and email address of the one >> that registers the proprietary extension, which is the authors and NOT the >> IESG. Only Standard track documents are listed with the IESG as contact in >> the IANA EPP extensions registry. >> The purpose of the IANA EPP extensions registry is to eventually consolidate >> all proprietary extensions to standards and the registered contact is one of >> the recognition points if an EPP extension is a standard. >> We do not want proprietary EPP extensions to become standards without >> consent of the REGEXT working group. >> >> I can understand that this can be confusing for the IESG, since they mostly >> review standards track documents as output from the REGEXT working group, >> but this is one of the few exceptions that is deliberately an informational >> document. >> >> - -- >> Antoin Verschuren >> >> Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL >> M: +31 6 37682392 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Op 26 sep. 2019, om 06:17 heeft Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> het >> volgende geschreven: >> >> This remains quite incomplete: the last call comments have not been properly >> handled. >> >> In Sections 6.1, 6.2, 7.1.2, and all the 7.2.x you made changes in response >> to Adam’s AD review, but you tried to use the second of his suggested fixes. >> What you did do is flawed, as you have introduced a space character between >> the two U+ characters (which is why he advised against that fix, because >> doing it without the extra space makes it hard to read, but adding the space >> makes it wrong). Please fix that. I suggest using Adam’s XML-escaping >> example to fix it. >> >> The Gen-ART review asked for BCP 14 key words in Section 5, and you said you >> would add them. You did not. That’s fine if you ultimately decided not to >> (I personally think it is not necessary), but I want to make sure you didn’t >> simply forget to make that change. >> >> The Gen-ART review asked for a brief explanation of what the conditions >> might be for not complying with the “SHOULD” requirements in Sections 7.2.x, >> and what the consequences would be. You did not add that, and I think it’s >> necessary. Please add an explanation in each of those sections. >> >> The SecDir review suggested changing the contact for the IANA registrations >> to the IETF, rather than the authors, and I agree: it should be “the IETF”, >> probably with the regext mailing list as the contact information. You did >> not make any change. Please do. >> >> You also did not address my comment about needing an explanation for why >> this is Informational and not Proposed Standard. It’s fine for it to be >> Informational, but the shepherd writeup needs to explain why (please update >> it), and the Introduction probably should also, assuming that reason has to >> do with the deployment, applicability, or maturity of what’s documented here. >> >> I won’t pass this up to the IESG until all these points are addressed. So >> back into Revised I-D needed this goes, and please handle this without undue >> delay. >> >> Thanks, >> Barry >> >> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 7:15 AM Jiankang Yao <ya...@cnnic.cn> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Barry, >>> >>> The new version has been submitted. It addresses the comments received >>> during IETF LC. >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-10 >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Jiankang Yao >>> >>> >>>> -----原始邮件----- >>>> 发件人: "Jiankang Yao" <ya...@cnnic.cn> >>>> 发送时间: 2019-09-13 16:39:04 (星期五) >>>> 收件人: "Barry Leiba" <barryle...@computer.org> >>>> 抄送: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration....@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org >>>> 主题: Re: [regext] New-AD review of >>>> draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09 >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks Barry. >>>> We have finished an initial new version. We will refine it and submit it >>>> within 2 weeks. >>>> >>>> Best Regards. >>>> >>>> Jiankang Yao >>>> >>>>> -----原始邮件----- >>>>> 发件人: "Barry Leiba" <barryle...@computer.org> >>>>> 发送时间: 2019-09-13 09:21:02 (星期五) >>>>> 收件人: "Jiankang Yao" <ya...@cnnic.cn> >>>>> 抄送: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration....@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org >>>>> 主题: Re: [regext] New-AD review of >>>>> draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09 >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks a lot. We will update a new version based on your guidance. >>>>> >>>>> It's been almost 12 weeks. Is a new version forthcoming? When can we >>>>> expect it? >>>>> >>>>> Barry >>>>> >>>>>>> 在 2019年6月22日，02:28，Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org>; 写道： >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey, regext folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This document had an AD review from Adam, a Gen-ART review from Joel, >>>>>>> and a SecDir review from Russ, and went through IETF last call. All >>>>>>> three reviews were responded to on the regext mailing list (by >>>>>>> Jiankang and by Antoine), but there has been no revision of the draft >>>>>>> to address the issues raised. That has to happen. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While we're there, there's the issue of the Informational status and >>>>>>> the registrant contact for the namespace: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's my understanding that this isn't specifying a standard, but, >>>>>>> rather, is documenting an existing non-standard extension that is not >>>>>>> expected to be a standard nor widely implemented. Is that correct? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If so, the document should make that clear in the Abstract (briefly) >>>>>>> and in the Introduction (somewhat less briefly). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, the shepherd writeup doesn't help me understand why this is >>>>>>> Informational, and it should: (from the writeup text, emphasis mine) >>>>>>> "Explain briefly what the intent of the document is (the document's >>>>>>> abstract is usually good for this), and WHY THE WORKING GROUP HAS >>>>>>> CHOSEN THE REQUESTED PUBLICATION TYPE". You say the working group >>>>>>> decided, but you don't say why. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So: >>>>>>> Please revise the draft to address the last call reviews, and also >>>>>>> please add something to the Introduction (and possibly the Abstract) >>>>>>> to explain the status of the document, making clear what the standards >>>>>>> or non-standards status is and what applicability we expect for it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm putting this into a "Revised I-D Needed" substate, awaiting such >>>>>>> revision. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Barry >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> regext mailing list >>>>> regext@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> regext mailing list >>>> regext@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext >> >> _______________________________________________ >> regext mailing list >> regext@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext >> >>
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
