From: Tobias Fiebig <[email protected]> Sent: 03 April 2026 14:37
Hello Tom, Thanks for your feedback. > This is much changed from BCP194 and I find it a much harder read. > Or not a read at all, rather a work to be referred to except that I > find it harder to find what I want to refer to (unless I am using the > same terminology as the authors). I see it as being in the same > space but not quite a replacement for it. This is, essentially, the discussion we had around the question of what this document should be. The main challenge we are facing is that BCP194 contains several pieces of technical advice that have 'not aged overly well'. The initial plan I had was fully updating the document, providing a comprehensive list of technology that should be used, see the -00 of the adopted document. The discussion in the WG then brought up that the document will be hard to find consensus (too many different technologies and far too large of a shed). Nick then suggested to make it, instead, a very brief policy stub that ideally, can be timeless. This was then also supported by the WG during the previous meetings (119, 120, 121, etc.), leading to the current, short, document. Main changes, e.g., regarding terminology were also to align the terminology with other concurrent documents (OTC, ASPA docs etc.) Do you have any suggestions in terms of text how the challenge could be addressed? <tp> I think that it is "This document obsoletes RFC7454, focusing on the overall goals, and providing a less implementation centric set of best practices." that leads me up the garden path. I think that it would be more accurate to say what your e-mail said, that the aim now is to have 'a very brief policy stub that ideally, can be timeless.' For me this is a substantial change in direction, which I was not expecting, hence my comment. I think that such a statement should appear in the second paragraph of the Abstract. Any later and I think that readers, as I was, risk being led up the garden path. Going further, while RFC7454 should be rendered 'obsolete', for me, this is not a document that does such a job. Renders it Historic perhaps, but does not obsolete it in the sense in which I normally see that used for a document. HTH Tom Petch With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M [email protected] Pronouns: he/him/his _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
