Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06
Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Mon, 04 June 2018 10:13 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 CE6F5126BF0 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 03:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 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] 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 Vx3ID8mgvxqH for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 03:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (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 4AB27126579 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 03:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1528107226; 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=//JMCpsaP3mkJXP85gGexzGCplh1MSg4vPe1n8ecKWA=; b=IcaJvn5V5fKjyIUyzN9wnRL3ccKVdie0M4AC/4CQ0j+hSXgBH596cGkwNU/KrTkp DAOKoTPlthKiyzfYpzO2XvtfHborJXSOa8C1hTHBv+vvWvcPWinFSiz81DTTP6xQ D1qjZn0radjEfBXK0biNCy5GQNMVHlYfK/w7FrLYNTc=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-323229c000005fee-ae-5b1510da1037
Received: from ESESSHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.24]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A1.89.24558.AD0151B5; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 12:13:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESBMB505.ericsson.se (153.88.183.172) by ESESSHC002.ericsson.se (153.88.183.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 12:13:45 +0200
Received: from ESESBMB503.ericsson.se (153.88.183.170) by ESESBMB505.ericsson.se (153.88.183.172) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 12:13:45 +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; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 12:13:45 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: 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>
CC: 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//9JvAIAAPScA
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 10:13:45 +0000
Message-ID: <D73AE907.30D50%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>
In-Reply-To: <21073937-e22d-2b13-ffc2-aec9e14fd3bb@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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: <31E03EF5F4EB744ABE29C15DE0599227@ericsson.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrCIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7hO4tAdFog2NdWhb73r5nsrj66jOL xeu22YwWKzYcYHVg8fj7/gOTR8/nF0weS5b8ZApgjuKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DKmPxHvGCFacXs y+fYGxh/GHcxcnJICJhIHP52h6WLkYtDSOAIo8Tz17vZIJzNjBJXly1kgnC+MkocbrsClVkK 5Dy6y9jFyMHBJmAh0f1PGyQuAtJx6vxWRpC5zAL6Ekf+7GYCsYUFwiU+9e1lAbFFBCIk/s9Y zQ5hu0nMOL4SzGYRUJHY/LuPDcTmFbCW6Pw7H2rZbUaJ/jd/mEESnAJOEgsbp4AVMQqISXw/ tYYJYpm4xK0n85kgHhKQWLLnPDOELSrx8vE/VhBbVEBPYsOJ2+wQcSWJLb1bmEAeYBbQlFi/ Sx9ijLXEyU2roUYqSkzpfsgOcY+gxMmZT8DuFxLQlmhZPIF9AqPULCSbZyFMmoVk0iwkk2Yh mbSAkXUVo2hxanFxbrqRkV5qUWZycXF+nl5easkmRmBcH9zy22oH48HnjocYBTgYlXh4FzKJ RguxJpYVV+YeYpTgYFYS4WU/KRItxJuSWFmVWpQfX1Sak1p8iFGag0VJnNcpzSJKSCA9sSQ1 OzW1ILUIJsvEwSnVwKhnkmXC+vxDQI/DIwMf9/223RfbDrpUWmx5OKP+uwXnyQX5R64YrzDm XHlm0blM9ifubhYf1Bt7VCJmGdfM/TcvfEPIVTGhpueuIvsYYuYkha53eHFZsva8bf/qYuWI swaey848Zp33YtM6ZtPbB/cFvrZrOqKu+TJxwkSm3SX9q/75HDsbH6fEUpyRaKjFXFScCABv 1bFh5wIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/jI-jsttwrmpgLj4AYujNvZxHC70>
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: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 10:13:51 -0000
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 > >
- 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