Re: [Gen-art] new version of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis posted

"Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com> Wed, 25 January 2012 07:30 UTC

Return-Path: <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.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 AA66621F8672; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:30:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Frt58PLNrNWr; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:30:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com (stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.96.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D374821F864D; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:30:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id q0P7UfN7008655 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:30:43 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with SMTP id q0P7U7tZ007616; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:30:07 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-01.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-01.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.70.222]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id q0P7U4oQ007552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:30:04 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.85]) by XCH-NWHT-01.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.70.222]) with mapi; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:29:49 -0800
From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
To: "'Ben Campbell'" <ben@estacado.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:29:48 -0800
Thread-Topic: new version of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis posted
Thread-Index: Acza41kXqgkWsFSrRfqPMX/UoV2p+wATa5oA
Message-ID: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CF2319DD6@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CF2319D99@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <64A41C1A-3031-440A-BD45-26A54513F231@estacado.net>
In-Reply-To: <64A41C1A-3031-440A-BD45-26A54513F231@estacado.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.0.0.1412-6.800.1017-18666.005
x-tm-as-result: No--80.941100-0.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: Yes
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "gurtov@ee.oulu.fi" <gurtov@ee.oulu.fi>, "draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis@tools.ietf.org>, "floyd@acm.org" <floyd@acm.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] new version of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis posted
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 25 Jan 2012 07:30:42 -0000

Ben, thanks for following up-- inline below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@estacado.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:58 PM
> To: Henderson, Thomas R
> Cc: Russ Housley; David Harrington; tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-
> ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis@tools.ietf.org; The IESG; floyd@acm.org;
> Yoshifumi Nishida; gurtov@ee.oulu.fi; gen-art@ietf.org Review Team
> Subject: Re: new version of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis posted
> 
> (Adding Gen-ART to the CC List)
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Thanks for the response. Further comments inline. I've removed sections
> that don't seem to need further comment.
> 
> 
> On Jan 20, 2012, at 5:58 PM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> >>
> >> -- Appendix A refers the reader back to RFC 3782 for additional
> >> information. But this draft purports to obsolete that RFC. If there
> is
> >> important info in it that is not covered by this draft, then it
> >> doesn't really obsolete it. Is there a reason that information was
> not
> >> brought forward into this draft?
> >
> > This Appendix was written as a result of comments from the WG review,
> with the intention to consolidate the informational material for the
> sake of clarity.  The current version (-05) keeps this appendix as is
> since it was addressing previous WG comments.
> 
> I guess my point was not the existence of the Appendix so much as the
> references to information in an RFC to be obsoleted by this draft,
> where ever it might occur. I guess these are informational reference,
> so they are by definition not necessary to fully understand this draft.
> But it still seems odd to me to reference information in a RFC
> obsoleted by this one, rather than pull the material forward (perhaps
> in an appendix). I tend to read "obsolete" to mean there's really no
> reason to ever read it other than historical ones. That is, for most
> practical reasons, we could pretend it no longer existed. I realize
> this is a point of process more than a content issue, so if others are
> okay with it, I will back away :-)

My interpretation was that obsolete referred to the current validity of the specification aspects, but not that the obsolete RFC couldn't be referred to for informational purposes. 

I don't care strongly; perhaps others could advise on a course of action here. 

> 
> >
> >>
> >> -- There is very little 2119 normative language. On a quick scan, I
> >> see one capitalized SHOULD NOT and one MAY. Yet it seems like there
> >> are other statements that are just as important for correct behavior
> >> as those. For the sake of consistency, it might be easiest to just
> >> drop
> >> 2119 language entirely.
> >
> > I have followed your suggestion; the draft now says:
> >
> >  Note that this specification
> >  avoids the use of the key words defined in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] since
> >  it mainly provides sender-side implementation guidance for
> >  performance improvement, and does not affect interoperability.
> >
> 
> That works for me--except there's a vestigial SHOULD in section 5. (and
> a 2119 reference for the purpose of saying you aren't using it. I see
> nothing wrong with that, but it spins IDNits for a loop :-)  )
> 

The vestigial SHOULD is intentional; it is within a quoted sentence from RFC 5681 so I am hesitant to change it for the sake of making idnits happy (under the assumption that the RFC editor can later ignore this nit).

- Tom