Re: [Tsvwg] WGLC on the SCTP Implementer's Guide (draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-impguide-14.txt)

[Michael Tuexen <[e-mail]>]

Brian,

the idea is to finalize the work on the IG by making it an
Informational RFC. After that, work on a -bis document which
is basically RFC2960 plus the deltas in the IG will be started
and results in a new protocol specification for SCTP, updating
RFC 2960.

This procedure makes sure that the information in the IG
(what has  changed to RFC 2960 and why) is not lost as compared to
'just making a -bis document'.

Best regards
Michael

On Aug 23, 2005, at 19:54 Uhr, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:

> Joe,
>
> I believe the name is ala ITU, where:
>
>    "Implementation Guide" => "Errata"
>
> Normally in the SIGTRAN WG we take the imp guide and combine it with 
> the
> protocol spec to form a -bis (more ITU jargon) document, the final
> document being a replacement protocol spec.
>
> I thinks that this draft goes beyond a BCP, because it make corrections
> and adds some new protocol requirements (such as max burst, cookie
> handling, fixing security holes, adding code points for protocol
> parameters requiring IANA actions, etc.  I does not contain many
> interpretations or operational considerations.
>
> I asked about the status of this document back in Feb 2003 and I was
> told by Michael Tuexen that "the SCTP IG will never become an RFC as 
> far
> as I know.  It is the 'delta' which will be applied to RFC 2960 when
> SCTP is moved from PS to DS or PS again."  A point with which I agree.
>
> IMHO it has little to no use as an "Informational" RFC if it does not
> actually modify the PS.  It might just as well remain a draft.
>
> What I would prefer to see is the deltas detailed in the draft applied
> to RFC 2960 to create an rfc2960-bis draft that we could comment on and
> advance as a new, corrected and updated, PS for SCTP.
>
> But that would be a lot of work and I don't know that the authors or 
> the
> WG are up to that challenge with all the other items on the work 
> agenda.
>
> --brian
>
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>> 2960 is a protocol spec; this is an implementer's guide.
>>
>> It's not clear either the term 'implementer's' or 'guide' should apply
>> to a standards-track doc. Maybe BCP?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>>> Allison,
>>>
>>> I am confused about the "Informational" designation.  The
>>> Implementor's Guide, as you know, is written in a style that
>>> provides replacement text for RFC 2960, and uses requirements
>>> language.  RFC 2960 is, of course, a "Proposed Standard".  So,
>>> my confusion is how an "Informational" RFC can replace text in a
>>> "Proposed Standard"?
>>>
>>> --brian
>>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Allison Mankin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi, TSVWG,
>>>>
>>>> This begins the Working Group Last Call for
>>>> draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-impguide-14.txt for Informational
>>>> publication.  Please send comments and reviews before
>>>> September 5.  A couple of reviews that state "have read it
>>>> as part of my working group participation and
>>>> view it as ready for publication" would be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> (We're going to make this request on all the WGLC's,
>>>> not singling out the Implementer's Guide).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> P.S. I'll send out an email addressing the four nits the
>>>> idnits tools finds.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tsvwg mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
> [e-mail]    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
> http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
>                         ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
>                         ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
> _______________________________________________
> tsvwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg


_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg