IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every node

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Wed, 06 September 2017 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D91132707 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 04:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 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_HI=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 874LJ3qBJ8IX for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 04:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (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 39ACC132351 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 04:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from birdie109 (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:209d:b6ff:fe02:f314]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC4E1616D0 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 13:31:46 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1504697506; bh=3uf/xu20wYnZuciq2IsbnYxoQzePClmC3Rs1MsIrxkY=; h=From:To:Date; b=eZ90IQNM46A4YyTDE6mwDu+DYpbtg3yPAn6qKH7D6b34Y/x4lHJl8f+u+fvkGUE45 Y3vc6gb9aD5ydJgk0hUFwUqivzMClCVraNdPbqn/vOr+kgyP58YmU5QZ6OeWoRmqrr W3yhWsC2ssasmijNl1o93UOd/YkcvUQncWXZz/tw=
Message-ID: <1504697539.3468.64.camel@nic.cz>
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: netmod@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 13:32:19 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20170906111007.ordythmm4i2t5gr7@elstar.local>
References: <20170905190151.fizr5dljufbyuyty@elstar.local> <20170906014757.GD31035@shrubbery.net> <20170906065723.dnv4xl2mchszcvlo@elstar.local> <478d00da-2cdf-b416-c0e5-cbba29c9ed43@cisco.com> <20170906111007.ordythmm4i2t5gr7@elstar.local>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Sgf_R0Xn8v5EoHkji_6X3G06FVU>
Subject: Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every node
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 11:31:50 -0000

Juergen Schoenwaelder píše v St 06. 09. 2017 v 13:10 +0200:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:34:33AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> 
> > I would prefer if it status was inherited (as an errata to 6020, 7950).
> 
> Erratas are not a tool to change a specification. You have to write
> and RFC that updates 6020 and 7950 in order to change what these RFCs
> say. This requires full WG / IETF consensus since the change affects
> implementations.

A current node with a deprecated ancestor doesn't make sense, so it looks like
an omission. IMO, a technical erratum is then appropriate.

Regarding the documentation needs, 6087bis could recommend not to rely
completely on the inheritance of deprecated status, and put it to other places
for documentation purposes (using common sense).

Lada 

> 
> /js
> 
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email