Re: [tsvwg] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-17: (with COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

On 2021-12-15, 17:42, "[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    > On 15. Dec 2021, at 17:25, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 
    > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
    > draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-17: No Objection
    > 
    > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
    > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
    > introductory paragraph, however.)
    > 
    > 
    > Please refer to https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-fe22d327-454445555731-25536b0fc4f2f08a&q=1&e=8d36a38a-3ad2-4795-baa2-75b1d9385403&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fblog%2Fhandling-iesg-ballot-positions%2F
    > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
    > 
    > 
    > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-fe22d327-454445555731-cd2d76b824c7d1f4&q=1&e=8d36a38a-3ad2-4795-baa2-75b1d9385403&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis%2F
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > COMMENT:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > [This point doesn't reach the level of a DISCUSS, but I believe it is important
    > and that it must be addressed before publication.]
    > 
    > This document should Obsolete rfc8540, which was used to provide "a history of
    > the changes that will be compiled into a bis document for [RFC4960]."  With the
    > publication of this document, it will have reached the end of its useful life.
    > 
    > Note that rfc4460 was not declared Obsolete by rfc4960. So this document should
    > take care of that too.
    Right now the 4960-bis document deals with RFC 8540 like RFC 4960 deals with
    RFC 4460. I wouldn't say that RFC 4460 and RFC 8540 have reached the end of its
    useful life, since they provide the background for most of the changes.
    But I do see your point and I'm happy to make the change if that is the consensus
    in the IESG.

Just repeating what I wrote in my ballot - I know RFC 8540's role for 4960-bis and this bis refers (informative) to RFC 8540 for further details. I don't think obsoleting RFC 8540 will change the reference for details relation form 4960-bis. Then the question is -- is there anything in the RFC 8540 that has not been included in this 4960-bis and that need to leave of it's own? If the answer is NO then we might just obsolete RFC 8540.


BR
Zahed