Subject: Re: [sidr] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 17:11:18 -0500

At Sun, 26 Feb 2017 06:43:54 -0800, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I still think lack of details about versionning and what requires (or
> not) to bump the version number is a mistake.

I added a sentence stating that incompatible changes to syntax or
semantics require a new version number, which seems kind of obvious.
Beyond that, it's pretty much impossible to say whether a change is
compatible without knowing the details of a particular proposed
change, so I see little to be gained in hypothetical discussion.

If you need something more than this, please send text or point to an
example of what you want (and, with respect, a hint at what it's
intended to accomplish), because at this point I do not have a clue.

> RFC 2616 (HTTP) got obsoleted, please reference the latest version.

Oops, sorry.  Done.

> In 2.5: is the list of error reasons extensible? If yes, should you have
> an IANA registry for them?

No current plan to extend the set of error reasons.

> In Section 5 you should reference this document (and not just section
> numbers), as IANA registrations cut & pasted to IANA website as separate
> files.

I assume you meant section 4, since I don't think IANA publishes
Security Considerations.  Draft -11 had already added [[RFCxxxx]] to
the media type template in the IANA Considerations section, per your
earlier instructions, and there are no section numbers in the media
type template.  Am I missing something here?

Given the impending dreadline, I posted -12.  If this is close enough,
cool, otherwise tell me what to do and we'll fix it.