Re: AD review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Wes,

On 01/19/2012 02:11 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
> I think there are two small process-oriented changes that need to be
> made to this document prior to the IETF LC.
> 
> 1 - I don't think it's proper to have a normative reference to RFC
>     1016.  This would be a down-ref, and need to be called out that
>     way in IETF LC, 

FWIW, my rationale for including it as "normative" was it wasn't just
"additional information" (i.e., informative), but since we were moving
it to historical, it was key to read it.

That aside, RFC 1016 is not assigned to any track, so in some sense it
was as including a normative ref to MD5 (which strictly speaking is a
down ref, but which we have done in the past).


>     but I think the right thing to do is to not have
>     it as normative in the first place, since not implementing a
>     congestion response to SQ doesn't require 1016 (it un-requires
>     it!).

No problem with that.



> 2 - I think to make 1016 historic, we need "Obsoletes: 1016" in the
>     header.

I seem to recall having an off-list discussion about this (with Alfred?)
but do not really recall the details. I tried looking up "the Obsoletes"
keyword in RFC 2026, but since its RFC-Editor metadata (?), it's not
even mentioned there.

That said, I agree with your suggestions. I will rev the I-D and post it
today, unless I hear anything against proceeding this way.

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1