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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 6/4/18 5:39 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

> The document write-up describes the process that has been used with SCTP 
> updates, and this document follows this plan - this is information to 
> help the WG prepare a bis document, that we plan to populate with these 
> edits to the spec and adopt as a WG item in Montreal.

In that case, do you actually intend for this document to progress to an 
informational RFC, or just leave it as a draft and let it expire once 
the bis has captured all it contains?

(My understanding is that there is now a preference not to waste 
resources publishing transient documents like this.)

>>> 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.
> There are other issues discussed on the list, and the text proposed here 
> is what the WG has discussed and finally agreed upon to appear in the 
> .bis document. It would be OK to add something about that.

So is this really just a capture of agreements the wg has made about 
planned changes to 4960, where many of them have been motivated by errata?

	Thanks,
	Paul