Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9324 <draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-20> for your review

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Alice,

On 20/10/2022 18:38, Alice Russo wrote:
> Bob,
>
> You wrote:
>> One question that might clear up a misunderstanding on my part:
>> Your Q11 ask for our preferences for the [ECN-L4S] short name, but I would have thought this would use the RFC-to-be short-name, given I would hope the three L4S drafts that were all approved together will all be published together.
>
> Regarding:
> A) draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch   (AUTH48 state as RFC-to-be 9324)
> B) draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id (RFC-EDITOR state)  - informative ref to A.
> C) draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled (EDIT*R state) - informative ref to A.
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2022, at 5:21 AM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> • Each is intended to be comprehensible stand-alone
> We understood that statement — and the lack of normative references to or from draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch — to mean that to mean that document could proceed to publication on its own.

[BB] No, no. Sorry. That was from a reader's perspective. Not about 
publication grouping.

>
> At this point, is it accurate that you want these 3 documents to be published at the same time? And that you want them to be assigned contiguous RFC numbers?

[BB] Yes. Sorry, I thought that was the reason they all went through the 
IESG together. I didn't understand that that was not the publication 
plan (I've only published single RFCs before).

They all refer to each other dozens of times, so it would seem crazy for 
the first one to refer to the others as drafts, when a few days later it 
could refer to them as RFCs.
They've been 7 years in the brew, a few more days is nothing.

>
> Essentially, it seems that you would like draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch to be part of cluster 350.
>
> For background, a cluster of documents is typically formed by normative references, or sometimes by specific request. https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/clusters/ has more info.

[BB] I would suggest that only these three get published together:
* l4s-arch
* ecn-l4s-is
* aqm-dualq-coupled

These two have other normative dependencies, so we wouldn't want to have 
to wait for them:
* trill-ecn-support
* docsis-q-protection

Is that clearer now?

Cheers


Bob


>
> Thank you.
> RFC Editor/ar
>
>> On Oct 19, 2022, at 10:28 AM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I thought I had better let you know that I've been working on this.
>> I missed the email at first, and it's taking much longer than expected to check through all the changes (2 days now).
>> Hopefully, my response will be with you tomorrow.
>>
>> One question that might clear up a misunderstanding on my part:
>> Your Q11 ask for our preferences for the [ECN-L4S] short name, but I would have thought this would use the RFC-to-be short-name, given I would hope the three L4S drafts that were all approved together will all be published together.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> Bob

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/