Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

On Thursday 02 October 2008, Mitesh Dalal (mdalal) wrote:
> vote for updates.
>
> I personally feel we are reading too much into the updates lingo.
> I didn't care one way or the other until somebody (Alfred ?) brought
> this up. Given that this is standards track document, the entire
> interne community will be well served if we clearly highlight where
> we are coming from. Updates in my mind does not mean a tcp V2
> nor it means MUST implement. It simply means a new piece of
> information found that concerns a base spec and sheds some new
> light on it.

When I read 'updated by' for an RFC I understand that if I want to implement a 
current version of that RFC then I need to also read the 'updated by' 
document. 

A good example is RFC 4032 (Update to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)) 
which says:

(Abstract)
   This document updates RFC 3312, which defines the framework for
   preconditions in SIP.  We provide guidelines for authors of new
   precondition types and describe how to use SIP preconditions in
   situations that involve session mobility.

(Introduction)
   This document updates RFC 3312,  provides guidelines for authors of
   new precondition types and explains which topics they need to discuss
   when defining them.  In addition, it updates some of the procedures
   in RFC 3312 for using SIP preconditions in situations that involve
   session mobility as described below.

Since tcpsecure does something simillar it may just need a sentence like "This 
document updates RFC 793 blah blah". The rationale is that whoever implements 
a current version of RFC 793 should also have in mind tcpsecure.

So, FWIW, I believe that tcpsecure should update RFC 793.
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm