Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Re-sent due to wrong e-mail address.

>
>Hi,
>
>I have also looked at this document, and there are things that I have
>think are unclear:
>
>Q1: It is Informational, and it does not update RFC 4960. Instead, it just
>seems to list the erratas (but without even referencing them, as noted by
>Paul). I think that it should be made very clear that this document is
>only for guidance, and that implementers shall use the actual erratas for
>the actual updates.
>
>Q2: Unless I’ve missed it, there is no indication whether the draft only
>includes the Verified erratas, or also others - in which case the modified
>text in one or more erratas may still be changed (erratas may even be
>rejected).
>
>Q3: While the draft name contains “-errata-“, it is unclear whether the
>draft only covers issues for which erratas has been filed, or whether
>other issues (e.g., issues that have been discussed on the list) are also
>included.
>
>Q4: When looking at the changes, at least in one case I can’t find an
>associated errata. For example, section 3.34 is associated with Section
>10.1. I only find one errata (#5003) associated with Section 10.1, but the
>changes in that errata does not match what is in the draft. A reference to
>the actual errata would help.
>
>Q5: The text says that the draft includes issues found since publication.
>Now, there may be more issues after this draft has been published, so it
>should say something like “at the time of publishing this document”.
>
>Regards,
>
>Christer
>
>
>
>
>
>On 03/06/18 21:59, "Gen-art on behalf of Paul Kyzivat"
><[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>[[INCOMPLETE, NOT READY TO SEND. PLEASE IGNORE]]
>>
>>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>>Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the
>>IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other
>>last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at
>><​http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>>Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06
>>Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
>>Review Date: 2018-06-03
>>IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-04
>>IESG Telechat date: ?
>>
>>Summary:
>>
>>This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the
>>review.
>>
>>Issues:
>>
>>Major: 1
>>Minor: 2
>>Nits:  1
>>
>>1) MAJOR:
>>
>>The format of this document disturbs me. According to the abstract:
>>
>>    ... This
>>    document provides deltas to RFC4960 and is organized in a time
>>    ordered way.  The issues are listed in the order they were brought
>>    up.  Because some text is changed several times the last delta in the
>>    text is the one which should be applied.
>>
>>This format makes the document hard to deal with. A developer who wants
>>to implement sctp with some or all of the errata fixes will want to work
>>from a variant of 4960 that incorporates all of those fixes - a bis. But
>>it isn't clear how this document helps with that. I don't think you can
>>start with 4960 and simply apply all the deltas sequentially, because
>>overlapping changes won't work right.
>>
>>A developer won't be interested in the order in which errata were
>>reported. An actual bis document would be more useful to a developer
>>than this format. Is that not being done because doing so would be more
>>difficult? Or because it isn't yet certain that these are the correct
>>fixes?
>>
>>I think you should give some serious consideration of the most suitable
>>form for this document, in the context of how it is intended to be used.
>>
>>2) MINOR (maybe MAJOR):
>>
>>Discovering where one change is impacted by another change is hard.
>>
>>I dug into the details of the document to understand how many places
>>there are actually overlaps between the changes in multiple sections.
>>(It took a lot of work to do this.) I found five of these:
>>
>>- 3.1 / 3.23
>>- 3.3 / 3.43
>>- 3.5 / 3.10
>>- 3.6 / 3.23
>>- 3.24 / 3.32
>>
>>(I don't guarantee that this list is exhaustive.)
>>
>>Of these, I think only one (3.1/3.23) explicitly indicates the conflict,
>>and it only indicates it within 3.23.
>>
>>Most of the changes don't have any conflicts. And some of the conflicts
>>could be removed by being more precise in indicating the change being
>>made. In cases where this isn't possible, the presence of the conflict
>>should be indicated in each section that has a conflict, with cross
>>references. IOW, shift the burden of detecting conflicts from the reader
>>to the document.
>>
>>3) MINOR:
>>
>>Errata Tracking: Apparently each subsection of section 3 covers one
>>erratum. But the errata numbers are not mentioned. Each section ought to
>>reference the errata number it responds to.
>>
>>4) NIT:
>>
>>In section 3.35 (DSCP Changes) the change to section 10.1 isn't properly
>>indicated. It shows 'Old text' twice rather than 'Old text' and 'New
>>text'.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gen-art mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gen-art mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art