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

[[e-mail]]

I think the obsoletes keyword will be essential and would support these
two edits. Go ahead Fernando!

Gorry

> 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
>
>
>