Re: [tsvwg] Wanted: recovering IETF process wonk to explain the "Updates:" header

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Spencer,

Thanks. Applying this advice to this particular draft confirms (for me 
at least) that we are updating these tunnel RFCs.

Writing the specific text updates for each one is proving to be a useful 
exercise. For instance with L2TPv3, it is specified as a generic 
encapsulation of many different L2 protocols that may in turn 
encapsulate IP or any other L3 protocol. And the outer is also a generic 
packet switched network header, with IP as just one possibility. So 
there isn't really a place that talks about the specific case where the 
outer is IP, and the encapsulated L3 is also IP. Even though that is by 
far the most common case. Whatever, I'm gradually working it all out.


Bob


On 25/07/16 17:57, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> Hi, Bob,
>
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Spencer,
>
>     I searched for " recovering IETF process wonk" and a link to your
>     biography was ranked top {Note 1}.
>
>     I'm looking for incontrovertible advice on whether I am correct to
>     place various long-standing tunnelling RFCs in the updates header
>     of this draft:
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis
>
>
> As a RIPW (my own words, FWIW), I don't think incontrovertible advice 
> exists for this. A variety of IESGs have had a variety of opinions 
> about Updates over time, and even with every IESG there's likely a 
> range of opinions. I am told in another e-mail that the RFC Series 
> Advisory Group was talking about the definition of Updates (and the 
> even more dreaded Obsoletes) in Berlin last week, so , this is not an 
> exact science. But, since you ask me, I'm the responsible AD and I 
> have an opinion.
>
> My opinion is that you can say Updates for RFC FOO if you want 
> everyone who implements RFC FOO to implement your draft, too. But 
> rather than leave you with my vague opinion, I'd say that if you Tell 
> The Reader what your draft is updating in RFC FOO and why, it will be 
> a lot easier for reviewers to figure out whether the Updates header is 
> legit.
>
> Sometimes that's obvious. Maybe you're correcting something that has 
> already resulted in an Errata being accepted - RFC FOO says "meat" 
> when it should have said "potato".
>
> Sometimes it's less obvious, especially when (as I believe the case is 
> here) RFC FOO didn't say anything about "potato" at all, but anyone 
> implementing RFC FOO needs to know whether to add potatoes.
>
> So, your explanation, that RFC FOO said "cook dinner" and didn't give 
> all the details an implementer needs, would be very helpful, no matter 
> what the Updates header turns out to say.
>
> Does that help?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>
>     I believe it cannot be claimed that these RFCs did not already
>     specify how to process the ECN field, because it is not possible
>     to encapsulate a packet with a new IP header without creating a
>     new ECN field.
>     Therefore, to my mind, definition of ECN field propagation is an
>     update not an optional addition to these RFCs (as I said in
>     response to Mirja in tsvwg on Friday).
>
>     To be clear about the implications of this decision, if the IESG
>     eventually approves rfc6040bis as an RFC, if it states that it
>     updates L2TPv3 (for instance), I believe it would mean that an
>     implementation of L2TPv3 could no longer claim to comply with the
>     L2TPv3 spec [RFC3931] until it had implemented ECN propagation
>     compliant with RFC6040.
>
>     Cheers
>
>
>     Bob
>
>     PS. Thanks for the advice to state explicitly how the text of each
>     RFC could be updated.
>     Will do.
>
>     {Note 1}: I was initially worried that an RFC I co-authored was
>     ranked second, but I was relieved to discover that we had used all
>     those words in a purely technical context: the RFC talked about
>     packet *process*ing and *recovering* keys and C.K. *Wong* was a
>     cited author.
>
>     -- 
>     ________________________________________________________________
>     Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
>
>

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/