Re: [Lsr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

On May 13, 2021, at 1:20 PM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

  This documents updates RFC 7370 by modifying an existing registry.

Also, this doesn’t seem to me like an update to RFC 7370. It’s normal for an
RFC to update an IANA registry, without saying it updates a previous RFC that
established that registry. I think the “updates” just confuses matters and
clutters things up, and should be removed.

In this case the document is not only registering a value.  It is
changing the name of the registry, adding an extra column, and
updating all the other entries (§11.1.*).  The Updates tag is used
because it significantly changes the registry.

Still seems unnecessary to me, registries are moving targets, citation of all the relevant RFCs in their references should be sufficient. So, the registry would be updated so that it cited both this spec and 7370, and someone wanting to know “how did the registry get this way?” would be able to work it out.

I’m not going to fight about it; the “updates” is not very harmful. I say “not very” because the diligent reader might be led to think they need to go read RFC 7370 in order to properly understand this spec, and waste some time realizing that isn’t true. Since for better or worse we don’t have a firm definition of when we do, and don’t, use “updates”, it comes down to a matter of personal taste in the end.

$0.02,

—John