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

Paul, thanks for your review. I have entered an ABSTAIN ballot on the basis of your major issue highlighted below.

Alissa

> On Jun 3, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Paul Kyzivat <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