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

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Bob,

On Jul 26, 2016 03:18, "Bob Briscoe" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 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.

Excellent. Clarity is good :-)

Spencer

> 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]> 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/