[lamps] Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-20: (with DISCUSS)

[Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-20: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As a reviewer, and therefor I suspect also implementors, needing to read
current + old and then compare it to new is very confusing. If this is for a
few paragraphs I can see the point but throughout the entire long document? It
prevented me from doing a full review.

The document also “updates” the IANA Considerations which is not a real process
we have. We only have new IANA Considerations and I don’t think we should tell
IANA to decode their instructions based on a diff with another rfc.

Please tell me how this document would not be simply better if the diffing and
replacing is done for the reader by obsoleting the old documents and creating
one new clear readable document? If the WG could not do this, how can we expect
an implementer to do this ?

This deliverable might have been good for the WG for tracking purposes but I
don’t think it works as an RFC for the intended target audience.