Re: [Tsvwg] WGLC on the SCTP Implementer's Guide (draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-impguide-14.txt)

Joe,

I believe the name is ala ITU, where:

   "Implementation Guide" => "Errata"

Normally in the SIGTRAN WG we take the imp guide and combine it with the
protocol spec to form a -bis (more ITU jargon) document, the final
document being a replacement protocol spec.

I thinks that this draft goes beyond a BCP, because it make corrections
and adds some new protocol requirements (such as max burst, cookie
handling, fixing security holes, adding code points for protocol
parameters requiring IANA actions, etc.  I does not contain many
interpretations or operational considerations.

I asked about the status of this document back in Feb 2003 and I was
told by Michael Tuexen that "the SCTP IG will never become an RFC as far
as I know.  It is the 'delta' which will be applied to RFC 2960 when
SCTP is moved from PS to DS or PS again."  A point with which I agree.

IMHO it has little to no use as an "Informational" RFC if it does not
actually modify the PS.  It might just as well remain a draft.

What I would prefer to see is the deltas detailed in the draft applied
to RFC 2960 to create an rfc2960-bis draft that we could comment on and
advance as a new, corrected and updated, PS for SCTP.

But that would be a lot of work and I don't know that the authors or the
WG are up to that challenge with all the other items on the work agenda.

--brian

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Joe Touch wrote:

> 2960 is a protocol spec; this is an implementer's guide.
> 
> It's not clear either the term 'implementer's' or 'guide' should apply
> to a standards-track doc. Maybe BCP?
> 
> Joe
> 
> Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> > Allison,
> > 
> > I am confused about the "Informational" designation.  The
> > Implementor's Guide, as you know, is written in a style that
> > provides replacement text for RFC 2960, and uses requirements
> > language.  RFC 2960 is, of course, a "Proposed Standard".  So,
> > my confusion is how an "Informational" RFC can replace text in a
> > "Proposed Standard"?
> > 
> > --brian
> > 
> > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Allison Mankin wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Hi, TSVWG,
> >>
> >>This begins the Working Group Last Call for 
> >>draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-impguide-14.txt for Informational
> >>publication.  Please send comments and reviews before 
> >>September 5.  A couple of reviews that state "have read it
> >>as part of my working group participation and
> >>view it as ready for publication" would be appreciated.
> >>
> >>(We're going to make this request on all the WGLC's,
> >>not singling out the Implementer's Guide).
> >>
> >>Thanks!
> >>
> >>P.S. I'll send out an email addressing the four nits the
> >>idnits tools finds.
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>tsvwg mailing list
> >>tsvwg@ietf.org
> >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
> > 
> > 

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
bidulock@openss7.org    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦