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

[Vincent Roca <[e-mail]>]

> Le 25 juil. 2018 à 16:34, Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> 
> On 7/25/2018 6:10 AM, Vincent Roca wrote:
>> Hello Wes, all,
>> 
>> We have just updated the FECFRAME extension and RLC FEC Scheme for FECFRAME I-Ds as
>> discussed during IETF 102 meeting. Those updates fix a few typos, slightly improve text, add
>> an acknowledgment section. We authors do not think it requires a new WGLC.
> 
> 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).

Does it answer?
Cheers,

  Vincent