Re: [tcpm] Please review 793bis!

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

On 7/29/2019 3:28 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Wes
>
> I've been staring at this one sentence
>
>     It does not replicate or attempt to update the introduction
>     and philosophy content inRFC 793  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc793>  (sections1  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-13#section-1>  and2  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-13#section-2>  of*that*
>     document).
> The 793 link is the link to 793, but sections 1 & 2 are linked to this 
> document.
> Is the intention to link to the older document, or to the -bis document?
> That would help clear up "that document" or "this document" to me.
>
Aha! So, that hyperlinking appears to be a crazy thing that the IETF web 
tool for presenting HTML incorrectly inferred.  The XML source does not 
contain hyperlinks for those numbers.  Not sure how to fix ...



> Back in Section 1:
>      RFC 793  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc793>  and other updates also contain
>     informative and descriptive text for human readers to understand
>     aspects of the protocol design and operation.  This document does not
>     attempt to alter or update this informative text, and is focused only
>     on updating the normative protocol specification.
>
> in DNSOP we struggled with this same question recently with 2845-bis
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis/
> Initially, the idea was to make as few a changes as possible to the 
> document,
> just make minor fixes.  But it became clear part of the reason there 
> was an
> issue with implementation was poor wording in the original document.
> Sadly, I have no simple answers.
>
Thanks for the perspective ... I'm hopeful that the most problematic 
parts of 793 in this regard have been fixed already in 1122 and 
elsewhere, and that by pasting in those updates, we've already handled 
them, but I guess will have to assess on a case-by-case basis.