Subject: [ippm] AD review: draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-02

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:16:14 +0200

Summary: Almost ready; some nits need to be fixed.

INTRODUCTION, paragraph 1:
> Intended status: Standards Track

  Why is this Standards Track? Informational is sufficient. (This would
  also fix the downref to RFC2330.)

  You should add an "Obsoletes: 4148" header.

  It would be good to add an "Updates" header that includes all the RFCs
  that defined entries in the registry after RFC4148 initially populated
  it, so that the RFC Editor database correctly points to this RFC that
  explains why they are obsolete. I think (but please doublecheck) that
  it should read: "Updates: 4737, 5560, 5644, 6049"

INTRODUCTION, paragraph 6:
>    This memo recommends that RFC 4148, the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)

  It doesn't just "recommend" this anymore, it makes it effective.
  Reword?

INTRODUCTION, paragraph 9:
>    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>    document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

  The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords - this should be
  removed. (You use RECOMMENDS in the text, but that is not an RFC2119
  keyword.)

Section 1., paragraph 5:
>    RFC 4148 registry.  Therefore, the IETF could now declare the
>    registry Historic without any further reservations.

  s/could now declare/now declares/.

Section 1., paragraph 6:
>    When a registry is declared Historic, it simply prevents IANA from
>    registering new objects, in this case new metrics.  So, even if a
>    registry user was eventually found, they could continue to use the
>    current registry and its contents will continue to be available.

  In the abstract and elsewhere in the text, you say that *RFC4148* is
  Historic, and that the registry is *withdrawn*. Here you say that the
  registry itself is Historic; reword?

Section 2., paragraph 1:
>    in practice, this memo RECOMMENDS that:

  RECOMMENDS is not an RFC2119 keyword.

Section 4., paragraph 2:
>    The current consensus is to withdraw the IPPM Metrics Registry, as
>    originally described in [RFC4148].

  What does this "withdraw" mean for IANA in practice? Should IANA
  remove the registry from its web pages?

Section 6.2., paragraph 0:
> 6.2.  Informative References

  If empty, remove. But I think some of the normative references are in
  fact informative. (I didn't need to know many of them in order to
  understand what this document is doing.)

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:14:46 +0100

Hi Lars,

>   remove the registry from its web pages?

For other registries, I have seen:

 * a comment in the overview list that this is obsolete and no longer
   maintained.
 * the files are kept as they were on the day the registry is declared
   obsolete.

This solves the problem of the group having to maintain a registry.  At
the same time, in the unlikely case that somebody is fetching/using the
files automatically, things will continue to work.

>   understand what this document is doing.)

If one does that, then the ID nits tool starts to complain.   I think
this is better done by the editor before publication.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I confirm today what I denied yesterday.            Anonymous Politician.

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:25:42 +0200

Hi,

> files automatically, things will continue to work.

plan sounds good. Can we add a sentence or two on this to the ID, so IANA knows what they need to do?

> this is better done by the editor before publication.

If we change the status to Informational, this won't cause any downrefs and so idnits should be quiet. (if it stays at PS, you are right that it would.)

Lars

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:40:43 -0500

>IANA knows what they need to do?

Yes, I'll take care of all points this morning.

Thanks for the comments, Lars,
and for the clarification, Henk.

Al

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:41:21 +0200

>  RECOMMENDS is not an RFC2119 keyword.

Quick followup: Even if you rephrase this using "RECOMMENDED", that is still only "SHOULD" level. We want "MUST" level, obviously. But since this isn't about spec interoperability anyway, I'd prefer to not use any RFC2119 language here (so we can also remove the boilerplate text and reference to it.)

Lars