Re: [tsvwg] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-05 - Document Status

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

Hi, Gorry,

On Sat, May 12, 2018, 02:16 Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On the document status:
>
> This draft is specifically to catalogue all the changes proposed for the
> SCTP base spec. The authors plan to then implement these changes as a
> textual update to RFC 4960 to realise a new completely clean base
> specification. Once this is done the present ID will exist only as a
> record of what has changed. This process was successfully used for other
> SCTP documents and was the rationale for the present ID requesting
> publication as a Information specification.
>
> This was in part explained in section 1 of the writeup - should it also
> be said in the ID?... There was clear consensus when this ID was adopted
> that the plan was to finaly provide an update to RFC 4960.
>

That's probably not necessary, now that I understand the theory behind this
draft.


> I expect the authors to comment on your comments, then update their draft.
>

Excellent!

Spencer

best wishes,
>
> Gorry
> (as document shepherd for draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata)
>
> On 11/05/2018, 21:12, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> > Dear Authors,
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 1:50 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >     Gorry Fairhurst has requested publication of
> >     draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-05 as Informational on behalf of
> >     the TSVWG working group.
> >
> >     Please verify the document's state at
> >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata/
> >     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata/>
> >
> >
> > Thanks for doing this work (and even more so, for being willing to
> > provide an updated RFC to implementers, at some point in the future).
> >
> > I've completed AD evaluation for this draft, and have comments, but
> > almost all of them are requests for clarifications.
> >
> > I'd like to work through them with you before requesting Last Call.
> > Please let me know if you have questions.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Spencer
> >
> > A high-order bit here ...
> >
> > I'm not sure why this draft isn't standards-track, and I wonder if
> > there's a reason it doesn't UPDATE RFC 4960, unless that's a side
> > effect of being an Informational draft that would update a
> > standards-track RFC.
> >
> > I'm thinking that this draft has achieved WG consensus, and if it's
> > published after Last Call, it would have IETF consensus, and it's been
> > reviewed by implementers. We've certainly published Proposed Standards
> > that didn't measure up to that level of document quality.
> >
> > I'm not objecting strongly to publishing as Informational, but I am
> > saying that I expect other ADs to ask that question during IESG
> > Evaluation, and I'd like to understand the thinking before someone asks …
> >
>
>