Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06
Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de> Wed, 06 June 2018 22:14 UTC
Return-Path: <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
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 DA324130DE8; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hWkuXr0Gr3ld; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drew.franken.de (mail-n.franken.de [193.175.24.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A03BA130DE5; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.6.67] (unknown [38.64.177.126]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87F31721E281A; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 00:14:25 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
Message-Id: <7EDB7C11-4263-407B-A320-BCFEA28DFB49@fh-muenster.de>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D16DF925-901E-45D3-882E-870BE983F3CB"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.4 \(3445.8.2\))
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 18:14:22 -0400
In-Reply-To: <D73ADF2B.30D2E%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Cc: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, "draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata.all@ietf.org>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <9c54eccb-82f2-e135-39af-6bf32824b648@alum.mit.edu> <D73AC219.30C7F%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <D73ADF2B.30D2E%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.8.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/6nGbvWIKTLm6mKi5FrEFli_VBZI>
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: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 22:14:37 -0000
Hi Christer, thank you very much for the review. Sorry about the late response, I'm currently traveling. See my replies in-line. Best regards Michael > On 4. Jun 2018, at 05:17, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote: > > > 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. Please note that the documents covers the following processed erratas and also mentions this: * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06#section-3.1 covers Errata ID 1440. * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06#section-3.2 covers Errata ID 1574. * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06#section-3.3 covers Errata ID 2592. * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06#section-3.4 covers Errata ID 3291 and Errata ID 3804. * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06#section-3.5 covers Errata ID 3423. * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06#section-3.6 covers Errata ID 3788. * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06#section-3.7 covers Errata ID 4071. * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06#section-3.8 covers Errata ID 4400. * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06#section-3.9 covers Errata ID 5003. Other sections deal with problems not necessarily reported as erratas using the IETF errata tool. >> >> 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). See above. >> >> 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. See above. >> >> 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. See above. >> >> 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”. We can add such wording. >> >> 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. As indicated by Gorry, the plan is to build a 4960bis once this document is done. Then a developer has only a single RFC to implement. If he wants to know which changes have been done and why it an consult this informative document. >>> >>> 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. In the past it was not that critical. Especially, once RFC 4960bis is out. >>> >>> 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. Please note that every subsection of section 3 covers an issue, but not one errata listed in https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4960 >>> >>> 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'. Fixed in the repository: https://github.com/sctplab/rfc4960bis/commit/650416a74049578aeea6c0e6098815f746ecc778 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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