Re: ABNF nits

["Alexey Melnikov" <aamelnikov@xxxxxxxxx>]

>>> If it's not going to be published, we need to strip all
>>> references to USEAGE in this document.
>>
>> ...not required, and USEAGE won't be published anytime soon.
>>
>> IMO nothing is wrong with an informative reference to prior
>> related work.  But saying that it's "work in progress" when
>> that's not the case (at the moment) could be bad.  The folks
>> at rfc-editor.org could decide to treat USEAGE as MISSREF...
>
> There are only two references to USEAGE in the document (3.8 and 3.9).
> Personally, I think they're expendible.  If USEAGE isn't going to be
> published, I think the best resolution is to just remove them.  I'd rather
> not cite an I-D in a published RFC, and I suspect the RFC Editor would
> have similar qualms.

See my reply to Frank's message.

>>  [review requests]
>>> I don't have time to do this at present and can make no
>>> promises as to when I will have time to do so.
>>
>> Okay, sometimes the WG Chairs or the responsible AD do this
>> for WG drafts.  But doing it too late is sub-optimal, after
>> all a review request *could* trigger a no-nonsense review.
>
> I think it's definitely a good thing to do.

I think it is not only a good idea, but it is also a require step.

>  I just won't be able to do it
> soon.  I might be able to do it towards the end of September; failing
> that, I won't have a free block of time until November.  Unless there's
> likely to be no discussion other than just the message, which of course is
> simple, but usually that's not true of public IETF review.
>
>> Clearly I think it is worthwhile, because IANA cannot do much
>> to "obsolete" message/news without a template.  All they can
>> do without template is update their 1036 reference to USEPRO.
>
> That's a good point.
>
>> But it might be possible to submit the template individually,
>> should I try this ?  In that case I'd be at least confident
>> about posting a review request "on behalf of the USEFOR WG",
>> e.g. I'd know that I can't say "on behalf of".
>
> I'm very happy to either support that.

Frank, speaking as a chair I am happy for you to submit the review
request on behalf of the WG.

> I can also include the template in
> the document easily enough if the working group thinks that's the right
> thing to do.  Does anyone else have an opinion?

I think that is the right thing to do.