Subject: [regext] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 01:18:00 -0800

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-04: 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-regext-rfc7483bis/

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

I concur with Alissa's observation.  This is a "bis" document, after all.

Thanks for Section 11.

Section 10.1 is an update to an existing media type registration, not a new
one.  Therefore:

* Shouldn't this become the referenced document?  Or is RFC 7483 still
controlling for this registration? * If the latter, should this section be
deleted? * If the former, should the registration still mention WEIRDS, or
should it be updated to REGEXT?

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:47:32 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 4:18 AM
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; Jasdip Singh <[email-masked]>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-
> rfc7483bis-04: (with COMMENT)
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
> is safe.
>
> 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.)

[SAH] [snip]

> controlling for this registration? * If the latter, should this section be deleted?
> * If the former, should the registration still mention WEIRDS, or should it be
> updated to REGEXT?

[SAH] My preference? Update to note that this new RFC is the appropriate reference (I think I need to do that for ALL the IANA stuff), and reference REGEXT.

Scott

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:15:28 -0800

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 7:47 AM Hollenbeck, Scott <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> [SAH] My preference? Update to note that this new RFC is the appropriate
> reference (I think I need to do that for ALL the IANA stuff), and reference
> REGEXT.
>

That's also what I would do.

-MSK