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

["Brian Stucker" <[e-mail]>]

I would also prefer that I-D references be left in the document. It's
very helpful to the community to not only know where SIP is at when you
read the guide, but to know where it's headed. If for no other reason
than it prevents someone from thinking they've discovered a novel
problem and go off implementing a solution parallel to what will soon
(hopefully) be an RFC. Likewise, if they find that the I-D is
incomplete, it gives them a reference to make comments against that they
may not have otherwise discovered.

It's an informative document. What if we just copy paragraphs two and
three of from the boilerplate "status of this memo" into the
introduction as a warning to those who read the document later as an RFC
that I-D's referenced by the guide can change. 

Is there any harm in doing this?

Regards,
Brian 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:36 AM
> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
> Cc: [e-mail]; Avshalom Houri; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
> 
> 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.
> 
> -Jonathan R.
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
> Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 
> 07054-2711
> Cisco Systems
> [e-mail]                              FAX:   [phone]
> http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: [phone]
> http://www.cisco.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
> 


_______________________________________________
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