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
>