Re: [spring] Note for clarify with regards to draft-srcomdt-spring-compression-requirements-05

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Joel,

Thanks for clarifying.   I agree if the updated documents were done in separate w.g., then having separate documents makes sense.

Bob


> On Mar 20, 2021, at 10:22 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> It can be the same document.  We could not find wording that made it clear that the update had to be approved by the owning WG, and that SPRING approval would be conditional on such.  And still alow for them being the same or different documents.
> 
> On the other hand, the usual practice has been to separate them as it makes for cleaner discussions.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 3/20/2021 12:49 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Jim, Joel & Bruno,
>>> On Mar 16, 2021, at 8:42 AM, James Guichard <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear WG:
>>> 
>>> A quick note from the chairs for clarity with regards to draft-srcomdt-spring-compression and as a matter of process for future unrelated documents.
>>> 
>>> With regard to section 5.2 of draft-srcomdt-spring-compression-requirements-05, the chairs note that this is primarily an IETF process issue, not a technical issue about solutions.  The chairs also remind people of two aspects of IETF process:
>>> 
>>> 	• First, an IETF draft which modifies an existing PS or BCP requirement will not be adopted by the SPRING WG without a corresponding document that explicitly modifies or updates the requirement being sent for consideration by the relevant WG.
>>> 	• Second, the document which makes such a modification or update will need to be approved by the IETF working group which owns the existing requirement before the SPRING document will be advanced out of the SPRING WG.
>> I don’t see why a single document can’t update both.   IDs are allowed to update multiple documents, the changes need to be clear, but I don’t see why separate documents are required.  Please explain.
>> Bob