Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06
Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 07 June 2018 06:43 UTC
Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 D8F9D130E84 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 23:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com
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 ttzNFDgDvVtg for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 23:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EC2012777C for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 23:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1528353806; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=426C9p3pz3Jz6RqmlbyJ27iNk8Ua73R5W1PPvlxThLw=; b=hDJfNiHXdqNfxzP1u7wkiyOaO825H1/wSF6k6X1HPzh+/bnnLHSgsgMM4oSDZU1L K43CvOfduqycCcYEWkvU+MrVEtpgwjVLgGhX5Hjtwzi5sgWI0ZfUchNz+tBT5d45 /6J9BIfON2W9RoaTvn+OlIT+cEUSq7DGcXBPEvAlFq0=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-335ff70000003465-6f-5b18d40de507
Received: from ESESSHC015.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.63]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id AB.BE.13413.D04D81B5; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 08:43:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB504.ericsson.se (153.88.183.165) by ESESSHC015.ericsson.se (153.88.183.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 08:43:25 +0200
Received: from ESESBMB503.ericsson.se (153.88.183.170) by ESESSMB504.ericsson.se (153.88.183.192) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 08:43:24 +0200
Received: from ESESBMB503.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.186]) by ESESBMB503.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.186]) with mapi id 15.01.1466.003; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 08:43:24 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@macmic.franken.de>
CC: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, 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>
Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06
Thread-Index: AQHT+20VCXScMZOQGUSoqbUJNb8GL6RP5E+AgAAAqoD//9JvAIAAPScAgAAOtACAA6zlgIAAwKmA
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 06:43:24 +0000
Message-ID: <D73EAF20.30F9C%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> <21073937-e22d-2b13-ffc2-aec9e14fd3bb@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <D73AE907.30D50%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <D73AF870.30D78%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <F7AFF99B-5709-418B-BD70-5F3210E9EF0D@macmic.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <F7AFF99B-5709-418B-BD70-5F3210E9EF0D@macmic.franken.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.7.170905
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.157]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <B4BC46E8AFFA9F408A3AFB2134B3920C@ericsson.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrPIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7vS7fFYlogyO7mS32vX3PZHH11WcW i9dtsxkt7l3ewWKxYsMBVgdWj7/vPzB59Hx+weSxZMlPJo//8yYxB7BEcdmkpOZklqUW6dsl cGUc/3CBueCIT8X3U79ZGhhPeHUxcnJICJhIdJ5cy9jFyMUhJHCEUaJ/42YWCGczo8TL5ZfY IJyvjBLb721hhnCWMkpcWf8FyOHgYBOwkOj+pw0ySkTAVOLRh9NgNcwCjxglph9YzAySEBYI l/jUt5cFoihC4v+M1ewQdpTEpV0XWUFsFgEViTXTGthAbF4Ba4kzZ1pZIZb9YpJ4vHAvI0iC U8BV4u3eJ2BDGQXEJL6fWsMEYjMLiEvcejKfCeIhAYkle84zQ9iiEi8f/wNbICqgJ7HhxG12 iLiSxJbeLUwgDzALaEqs36UPMcZa4nFzIzuErSgxpfshO8Q9ghInZz4Bu19IQFuiZfEE9gmM UrOQbJ6FMGkWkkmzkEyahWTSAkbWVYyixanFSbnpRsZ6qUWZycXF+Xl6eaklmxiB0X5wy2/V HYyX3zgeYhTgYFTi4bU+JBEtxJpYVlyZe4hRgoNZSYQ38ZJYtBBvSmJlVWpRfnxRaU5q8SFG aQ4WJXHeh+abo4QE0hNLUrNTUwtSi2CyTBycUg2MWT/Oxpyo6dTewHaWX/wEi3aG0j3V7V0f f7kYZnP84mpwfL0io9iz7ONOXQUlYfuK2QUnGxbyO1xc/PzyjZ9/4w5fSe39MCVy1kKZy81R CR+Frzhfddeo+zDHflbDJ9F1vVHRpqpv+j8Hndr6xOXAgcZVG5tj79Vs3mO1t2B1u3DJ0kMR LzkPKrEUZyQaajEXFScCAF5/WsjyAgAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/awNV-kw620z49ShpaE0cj0S_gLM>
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: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 06:43:32 -0000
Hi, >>Not a comment on the document, but a question/suggestion: >> >> If you want to have a place holder for changes to be done in the bis >> (which seems to be the main purpose of the errata document), why not >> create a GitHub repo for the bis, and then document everything as GitHub >> issues? Then, when you start working on the bis, you can map each issue >>to >> a pull request etc. >We did use a github report using issues which working on this document. > >Replacing this document with an github issue tracker doesn't seem >attraktive to me. Github can go away at any time or gets replaced >by other tools and than the information would not be accessible >anymore. Please note that we document the changes and the reasoning >not for us, but for developers which are interested in it in the >future. Sure, but my understanding is that the future, i.e., the bis document, is coming soon, and I guess the bis document will anyway describe the changes (and the reasons) compared to RFC 4960. Anyway, since I haven’t been involved in the work, I don’t want to argue about the way the WG is working. It was just a question/suggestion :) Regards, Christer >>Regards, >> >> Christer >> >> On 04/06/18 13:13, "Gen-art on behalf of Christer Holmberg" >> <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Gorry, >>> >>> ... >>> >>>> The information in this document does not update RFC4640 or the Errata >>>> to that specification. The document is instead provided as input to >>>> preparation of a new document that is expected to be a standards-track >>>> replacement for RFC4960. If approved, the replacement document will >>>> incorporate the updates described here and any other changes needed to >>>> allow this to progress this specification along the standards track. >>> >>> I am ok with the two first sentences. >>> >>> But, I don’t think you can make the last sentence. This document cannot >>> normatively define text for the replacement document, or assume that >>> everything will be incorporated: the WG will have to agree on what goes >>> into the replacement document once it has been added to the charter >>>etc, >>> using normal IETF procedures. >>> >>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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