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

Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net> Wed, 25 January 2012 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@estacado.net>
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 33C1B21F85D5; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:42:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 KsKE89gmEqPP; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:42:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from estacado.net (estacado-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:266::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468B021F84CF; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:42:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (cpe-76-187-92-156.tx.res.rr.com [76.187.92.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by estacado.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0PEgFOJ093706 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:42:20 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@estacado.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net>
In-Reply-To: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CF2319DD6@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:42:23 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <24FED8D3-1E26-4AF6-90E1-82F967EBD350@estacado.net>
References: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CF2319D99@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <64A41C1A-3031-440A-BD45-26A54513F231@estacado.net> <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CF2319DD6@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
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 14:42:55 -0000

On Jan 25, 2012, at 1:29 AM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote:

[…]

>> 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. 
> 


From separate email, I gather the aforementioned  "others" share your viewpoint. So at this point I suggest leaving it as-is.

>> 
>> 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).
> 

You are absolutely right--I was globally searching for 2119 words, and missed the context. Sorry for the confusion.