Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext-03.txt

[Vincent Roca <[e-mail]>]

Hello Wes,

> Le 25 juil. 2018 à 17:10, Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> 
> On 7/25/2018 11:00 AM, Vincent Roca wrote:
>>> Le 25 juil. 2018 à 16:34, Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]> a écrit :
>>> Hi Vincent, one part of the shepherd write-up asks us to make sure that if any other RFCs are updated, obsoleted, etc., that it's indicated properly.
>>> 
>>> As this document explains, it extends but doesn't replace RFC 6363.
>>> 
>>> One could see this as a definite case for having it say "Updates: 6363" in the header.  Do you agree, or was there a reason I've forgotten why we decided not to indicate that?
>> I think the question has never been asked like that.
>> 
>> My first idea, back in 2016, was to replace RFC 6363 altogether.
>> Then David had this key remark that in fact we just want to extend RFC 6363 and the title reflects this.
>> 
>> I don’t know what « updates RFC 6363 » implies exactly. If « updates » implies « replaces » then the
>> answer is no. RFC 6363 will remain as is, without any change, we just add a new capability to it.
>> 
>> The new FECFRAME standard should now be understood as the combination:
>> 	RFC 6363 + RFC XXX (this doc).
>> 
> 
> It sounds like "Updates" has the right semantics then.  What we don't want is "Obsoletes".
> 
> FYI, it's defined in 2223:
>    Updates
> 
>       To be used as a reference from a new item that cannot be used
>       alone (i.e., one that supplements a previous document), to refer
>       to the previous document.  The newer publication is a part that
>       will supplement or be added on to the existing document; e.g., an
>       addendum, or separate, extra information that is to be added to
>       the original document.
> 

That’s perfectly in line with the intent.
So we clearly update this RFC.

Thanks.

  Vincent