Re: [Sip] Re: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03

[Spencer Dawkins <[e-mail]>]

I was going to respond offlist, but Brian's already onlist with followups, 
so...

I would like to support Jonathan's understanding here.

I thought the Hitchhiker's Guide was very useful when it appeared, and have 
reviewed multiple versions of the draft since then. I would like for it to 
be "out there", and I would like for each revision to be as helpful as we 
can make it.

(1) delaying publication due to REF-HOLD for completed-and-approved 
specifications to pass through RFC Editor processing doesn't seem helpful, 
while

(2) removing references to completed-and-approved specifications that don't 
have RFC numbers assigned seems even LESS helpful.

I see no problem with references to completed-and-approved IDs in an 
Informational RFC that we expect to update anyway. My understanding is that 
these IDs really ARE stable references - they no longer expire, and are 
replaced with "was published as RFC XXXX" boilerplate when an RFC IS 
available.

One recent redirection looks like this (appears as 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip6-dsmip-problem-04.txt)

"This Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mip6-dsmip-problem-03.txt, was published as 
an Informational RFC, RFC 4977 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4977.txt), on 
2007-8-29."

As long as we publish specifications the way we publish them, there's going 
to be a delay, measured in months, for significant specifications in RFC 
Editor processing/Auth48/etc. REF-HOLD for the Hitchhiker's Guide makes no 
sense.

Thanks,

Spencer

From: "Jonathan Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>

> inline:
>
> Francois Audet wrote:
>> What about SIPS, which is already in hitchiker's guide, and which is 
>> waiting on outbound because of a normative reference?
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     *From:* DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>     *Sent:* Tuesday, October 30, 2007 01:01
>>     *To:* Avshalom Houri; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>     *Subject:* RE: [RAI] RAI review of 
>> draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
>>
>>     (As WG chair)
>>      Just a note that I should have included with the WGLC.
>>      The intention with this document is to republish on a recurring
>>     basis, and therefore to keep it up to date (say once a year or so).
>>      The 1st versions is intended to include gruu, outbound and ice, but
>>     apart from that, anything that is not published in that timeframe
>>     will probably be removed unless there is exceptional justification
>>     for keeping it, with the idea that it will appear in the next 
>> version.
>
> This is news to me...
>
> What I thought would happen is that we have references to everything in 
> the guide, and when the guide appears as an RFC, whatever references are 
> at RFC status at that time, get RFC numbers. Everything else is referenced 
> as an I-D.
>
> I think you are suggesting that, instead, when we send this to IESG, we 
> remove any content and references associated with documents which are not 
> on track to publication around the same timeframe as hitchhikers guide 
> itself. Indeed it will require us to change those references to normative 
> in order to get rfc-editor to do a REF hold on hitchhikers till its 
> dependencies clear.
>
> If my interpretation is correct, my next question is whether this applies 
> to just the core specs or all of the specs.
>
> I personally would rather leave the document as is - include everything, 
> and recognize that some references will be drafts rather than RFCs when 
> hitchhikers is published. Next round of hitchhikers will have more of them 
> as RFCs. 




_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip