Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-06

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

[snip]

> On Jun 23, 2017, at 7:03 AM, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >It is very difficult to read this by itself, even though it is very short.  I'd think it would be better to just make this minor modification to the base RFC. 
>  
> The WG discussed that alternative, but this was the agreed way forward.
>  
> >And if we want to have these tiny RFCs, I understand that it's unusual for someone to just read one rather than the whole group...it's really
> >the case of a SECDIR person being assigned a specific RFC that might not be caught up on all the jargon for that WG.  However, I think
> >each RFC should be understandable. 
>  
> As a gen-art reviewer, I hear what you are saying, and in the beginning I more or less had the same opinion. However, later I have realized that to make each RFC “understandable” on its own would mean copy/pasting lots of text from other RFCs, and/or adding lots of clarification text. So, nowadays, when I review a document, I try to make sure that there are references where I can go and find extra information.
>  
> >There ought to be a "context", that includes what other RFCs should be read first, and in particular, either an acronym dictionary or a
> >pointer to an RFC that has explanations for all the acronyms in the little RFC.
>  
> I guess it is assumed that the Normative References provide such “context”.
>  
> 
Would an informational reference to RFC 5411 (The Hitchhiker’s Guide to SIP) be helpful? Maybe if it were cited early in the introduction as a place to look for more information about the various SIP RFCs?

Thanks!

Ben.