Hi, Thanks for your comments. See below. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:25 AM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Donald, > > At 18:48 06-02-2013, Donald Eastlake wrote: >> >> I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. The errata does appear in the >> references as >> >> [Errata191] - RFC Errata, Errata ID 191, RFC 4051, http://www.rfc- >> editor.org >> >> I have been told by an Area Director that this it the format that the >> RFC Editor likes. You can certainly find the Errata starting with that >> link and by just linking to the main ref-editor.org web page, it does >> not constrain the other structure of that web site. > > [Errata191] was a normative reference. Referencing errata in an intended > Proposed Standard might be a trivial matter. There are side effects to > that. That may only be apparent in the long term. I hope that the RFC > Editor does not plan to turn Standard Track RFCs into "living" standards. > >> OK. I will move the Errata to the Informational references. > > See above. > >> I disagree. I believe acknowledgments are very important and should be >> at the front. I commonly (but not always) put them there in my drafts. >> I am also not aware of any IETF rule prescribing where >> Acknowledgements go in Internet Drafts. It is true that the RFC Editor >> always move them to the end, but that's the way it goes. > > I noticed that you are one of the rare authors who has the Acknowledgements > at the beginning of their document. It was a practice followed in some of > the three-digit RFCs. There isn't any requirement in the RFC Style Guide > which prohibits the Acknowledgements from being at the front of the > document. As I say, although I frequently put them near the front of my Internet Drafts, the RFC Editor always moves them to the end. > I don't know whether it is relevant but John Klensin mentioned this a few > days ago: > > "One might even suggest that one of the reasons early > ARPANET/ Internet developments worked better than the IETF > process of today is that there was wide recognition that it was > necessarily a collaborative effort with many people contributing > ideas and no one wanting to seize credit." I believe there may be some legal requirement to acknowledge those whose contributions have resulted in change in the document, unless they ask not to be listed. Anyway, my practice is not because anyone has asked to be listed nearer the beginning of the document but because I think they deserve to be so listed. > Section 5 mentions that "This document requires no IANA actions". However, > there is another paragraph in the IANA Considerations section which is not > even actionable by IANA folks. I am not sure whether the text should go > into that section. Well, I could rename Section 5 to be "Allocation Considerations" and provide two subsection, one "5.1 IANA Considerations" and one "5.2 W3C Allocation Considerations" or the like and perhaps also move some of the material at the beginning of Section 2 down to 5.2. > In Section 1: > > "Note that raising XML Digital Signature to Draft Standard [RFC3275] > in the IETF required removal of any algorithms for which there was > not demonstrated interoperability from the Proposed Standard > document. This required removal of the Minimal Canonicalization > algorithm, in which there appears to be continued interest. The URI > for Minimal Canonicalization was included in [RFC4051] and is > included here." > > That was the historic rationale for the different levels in the Standards > Track. Rumor has it that although the rationale was forgotten, whether > intentionally or not, the "MUST" wars continued. Dave Crocker once raised > the question of complexity of a specification. Advancement along the > Standards could have been used to make a specification less complex by > trimming stuff which has not been implemented (see quoted text above). > > In Section 2.1.1: > > "The content of the DigestValue element shall be the base64 [RFC2045] > encoding of this bit string viewed as a 16-octet octet stream." > > RFC 4648 could be reference instead of RFC 2045. RFC4648 is Informational, so that would cause yet another downref. RFC 2045 has not bee obsoleted and seems fine to me for this purpose. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx > Regards, > -sm