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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>>>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?

I actually had a look in RFC 5411, but it doesn't clarify this.

We have defined lots of new SIP header fields over the years, and I think people know how to "fit" them into the ABNF. Having said that, IF we want to clarify this, I think it should be done in 3261, 5411, or some other generic document. 

Regards,

Christer