Re: [Tsvwg] Protocol Action: 'Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Specification Errata and Issues' to Proposed Standard

The,

There you go again with the PS.  This document was supposed to be INFORMATIONAL.

--brian

The IESG wrote:                                                                        (Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:31:31)
> The IESG has approved the following document:
> 
> - 'Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Specification Errata and Issues
> '
>    <draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-16.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> 
> This document is the product of the Transport Area Working Group Working Group.
>  
> 
> The IESG contact persons are Allison Mankin and Jon Peterson.
> 
> A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-16.txt
> 
> Technical Summary
> 
>    This document is a compilation of issues found during six
>    interoperability events and 5 years of experience with implementing,
>    testing, and using SCTP along with the suggested fixes.  This
>    document provides deltas to RFC 2960 and is organized in a time based
>    way.     Each section describes a problem that was found, details of
>    the solution, and the snapshot of textual changes or delta for that
>    problem solution.
>    
>    The issues are listed in the order they were found or brought up.
>    The document provides a history of errata and deltas, and therefore
>    some text is changed several times.  The detailed process of 
>    deriving 2960bis from the present document is not discussed in
>    this document.
>  
>  Working Group Summary
>  
> 
>   The working group reviewed the proposal to publish this Informational
>   record of the issues and fixes to RFC 2960 in this form and gave consent
>   to this plan.  The rationale for publishing it was to cap revisions to
>   the long and complex RFC 2960 document when the bis effort is
>   undertaken - this document will be available as the limit on the 
>   normative corrections, corrections that have been discovered and vetted
>   in interop testing and extensive review. 
> 
>   The Responsible Area Director (also a Chair) did question the intended 
>   status as Informational, since some of the text changes will eventually modify
>  
>   a Proposed Standard document, RFC 2960.  The working group was not
>   supportive of the document as a Proposed Standard; the WGLC
>   for the document was for an Informational, because that was the
>   request made by the authors, and when the AD and the non-AD 
>   Chair proposed a WGLC for PS, there were a few vocal objectors,
>   including the Editor.
> 
>  Nevertheless, since RFC 2026 gives the IESG the discretion to modify
>  intended status of documents as required, the Responsible AD
>  decided to give the document an IETF Last Call as Proposed Standard
>  just in case, while still asking the IESG to review the document as 
>  Informational as the WG wished.  If the IESG viewed the document as
>  requiring standards track status, it would have been possible to consider
>  tht switch further.  The IESG agreed after a short discussion that
>  the document could remain as an Informational.
>   
> Protocol Quality
>  
>   On a number of the deltas, there was considerable review and discussion,
>   so that not only running code, but also detailed protocol review was
>   taken into account,  and the working group's comments led to new
>   tests and revision of the deltas.
> 
>   The Responsible Area Director is Allison Mankin.  The WG Chair shepherd
>   is James Polk.
> 
> Note to RFC Editor
>  
> Omit reference [2], RFC 2026, from being a citation and from
> the normative references.
> 
> Abstract
> 
> OLD:
>    Because some text is changed several times the last delta in the text
>    is the one which should be applied.
> NEW:
>    Because some text is changed several times, the last delta in
>    the document is the erratum for that text in RFC 2960.
> 
> 1. Introduction
> 
> OLD:
>    Note that when reading this document one must use care to assure that
>    a field or item is not updated further on within the document.  Each
>    section should be applied in sequence to the original RFC2960 [7]
>    since this document is a historical record of the sequential changes
>    that have been found necessary at various inter-op events and through
>    discussion on the list.
> 
> NEW:
>    
>    This document is a historical record of sequential changes what have
>    been found necessary at various interop events and through discussion
>    on this list.
> 
>    Note that because some text is changed several times, the last delta
>    for a text in the document is the erratum for that text in RFC 2960.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tsvwg mailing list
> tsvwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
tsvwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg