Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06
Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Mon, 04 June 2018 09:18 UTC
Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422D0126579 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 02:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lFBnLjpYE5cq for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 02:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0704124C27 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 02:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1528103880; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=FIGkSFqqMFCqdvUq/f4W7ahsw53M0SrJkMAaAoBEp7M=; b=LiAk33dC1ogu8eXJtoHK3dzAKQIRv9ERH+C+SfXz+JKiW5Fh+CxleUbtUBXePhOj 4Vf71c6roI32ZwecKcZzomaPN6YZlu9/tEUqQchGNBbMo3GX5HLyqbsIv9O1Nh7U 461ozby54f8tPx4Y/OwTbnWz0awdW9EAn6ZgCV9xZ4s=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f7fff700000002c8-cd-5b1503c7b20b
Received: from ESESSHC010.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.48]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 6C.D5.00712.7C3051B5; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 11:18:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESBMB502.ericsson.se (153.88.183.169) by ESESSHC010.ericsson.se (153.88.183.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 11:17:59 +0200
Received: from ESESBMB503.ericsson.se (153.88.183.170) by ESESBMB502.ericsson.se (153.88.183.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 11:17:59 +0200
Received: from ESESBMB503.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.186]) by ESESBMB503.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.186]) with mapi id 15.01.1466.003; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 11:17:59 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, "draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata.all@ietf.org>
CC: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06
Thread-Index: AQHT+20VCXScMZOQGUSoqbUJNb8GL6RP5E+AgAAAqoA=
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 09:17:59 +0000
Message-ID: <D73ADF2B.30D2E%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <9c54eccb-82f2-e135-39af-6bf32824b648@alum.mit.edu> <D73AC219.30C7F%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <D73AC219.30C7F%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.7.170905
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.157]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <B6EEC69B994F3243960C1BE6F6A8C1F6@ericsson.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrJIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7ge4JZtFog3V3eSz2vX3PZHH11WcW ixUbDrA6MHv8ff+ByWPJkp9MAUxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJXBmbzqxnL5hiWXFw9xfmBsYb5l2M nBwSAiYSrw+1M4HYQgJHGCX+3tLvYuQCsjczSvyf/Z0NwvnKKNHevZ4JwlnKKPFuyxXWLkYO DjYBC4nuf9ogcRGB/YwS17ZOZAMZxSygL3Hkz26wscIC4RKf+vaygNgiAhES/2esZoewrSRu Hd4EVsMioCLx4eUcMJtXwFri6tst7BAnFUrsvrMEzOYUsJGYeecDI4jNKCAm8f3UGiaIXeIS t57MZ4J4R0BiyZ7zzBC2qMTLx/9YQWxRAT2JDSdus0PElSS29G5hArmfWUBTYv0ufYgx1hLf 99yGOl9RYkr3Q3aIcwQlTs58wgJxjrZEy+IJ7BMYpWYh2TwLYdIsJJNmIZk0C8mkBYysqxhF i1OLk3LTjYz0Uosyk4uL8/P08lJLNjECI/jglt8GOxhfPnc8xCjAwajEw7uAUTRaiDWxrLgy 9xCjBAezkggv+0mRaCHelMTKqtSi/Pii0pzU4kOM0hwsSuK8Fn6bo4QE0hNLUrNTUwtSi2Cy TBycUg2MkZPEjpgWGWyZw3XMeC3v8XfnJv1apLsw8UqbmXZacUWeTugC1ekr3NV/SxT38Ocz B8aG19aoORYJJB3a23lMpy44tHbXrocN7Qe4NZdvnXk96H0K19rlWZsu+Ttenxp95CJ7MI9v S2BtAqtehPyR9oTZClV/cm5zT7jhKMFw1vX4Gonvy6cosRRnJBpqMRcVJwIAR+oBONwCAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/-sGZcYBsXv8yEwuc2Fp4DFrCmqo>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 09:18:06 -0000
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" ><gen-art-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> 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 >>Gen-art@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > >_______________________________________________ >Gen-art mailing list >Gen-art@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Alissa Cooper
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Paul Kyzivat