Subject: [precis] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 09:50:02 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-7613bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Taking a page from Benoit's playbook, here is a diff from RFC7613:
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-08.txt&url2=https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7613.txt
(I feel really stupid for not realizing this earlier, but diff'ing a -bis from
the base RFC is a: obvious and b: really useful for understanding which bits
need more review)

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 13:14:49 -0500

> On Jul 5, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> (I feel really stupid for not re
> alizing this earlier, but diff'ing a -bis from

Thanks go to the authors for making the -bis easily “diff-able” from the RFC. Not everyone does that. I’ve been debating whether we should consider some guidance to -bis authors to avoid unnecessary changes that make it difficult to review the changes. (e.g. stylistic changes, unnecessary reorganization, etc.)

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:33:47 -0400

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Thanks go to the authors for making the -bis easily “diff-able” from the RFC.

Indeed.  I intended to thank them as well, but forgot.

> Not everyone does that. I’ve been debating whether we should consider some guidance to -bis authors to avoid unnecessary changes that make it difficult to review the changes. (e.g. stylistic changes, unnecessary reorganization, etc.)
>

That would be helpful, and is non-obvious to many authors. Many people
seem to feel that they should make gratuitous changes to show that
they "did stuff".
W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf