Re: [tsvwg] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-05 - Document Status

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

On the document status:

This draft is specifically to catalogue all the changes proposed for the 
SCTP base spec. The authors plan to then implement these changes as a 
textual update to RFC 4960 to realise a new completely clean base 
specification. Once this is done the present ID will exist only as a 
record of what has changed. This process was successfully used for other 
SCTP documents and was the rationale for the present ID requesting 
publication as a Information specification.

This was in part explained in section 1 of the writeup - should it also 
be said in the ID?... There was clear consensus when this ID was adopted 
that the plan was to finaly provide an update to RFC 4960.

I expect the authors to comment on your comments, then update their draft.

best wishes,

Gorry
(as document shepherd for draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata)

On 11/05/2018, 21:12, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> Dear Authors,
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 1:50 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Gorry Fairhurst has requested publication of
>     draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-05 as Informational on behalf of
>     the TSVWG working group.
>
>     Please verify the document's state at
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata/>
>
>
> Thanks for doing this work (and even more so, for being willing to 
> provide an updated RFC to implementers, at some point in the future).
>
> I've completed AD evaluation for this draft, and have comments, but 
> almost all of them are requests for clarifications.
>
> I'd like to work through them with you before requesting Last Call. 
> Please let me know if you have questions.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Spencer
>
> A high-order bit here ...
>
> I'm not sure why this draft isn't standards-track, and I wonder if 
> there's a reason it doesn't UPDATE RFC 4960, unless that's a side 
> effect of being an Informational draft that would update a 
> standards-track RFC.
>
> I'm thinking that this draft has achieved WG consensus, and if it's 
> published after Last Call, it would have IETF consensus, and it's been 
> reviewed by implementers. We've certainly published Proposed Standards 
> that didn't measure up to that level of document quality.
>
> I'm not objecting strongly to publishing as Informational, but I am 
> saying that I expect other ADs to ask that question during IESG 
> Evaluation, and I'd like to understand the thinking before someone asks …
>