Re: [tsvwg] Eric Rescorla's Abstain on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06: (with COMMENT)

["Proshin, Maksim" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,


As one of SCTP developers I can confirm that such document is really useful. When we were applying RFC4960 to our implementation of RFC2960, we actively used RFC4460. The most important benefit of the documents such as RFC4460 and the current drat is that they explain why a change is needed and why a particular solution was chosen which makes developers decisions easier.


Also I know that some developers are already using this draft to improve their implementations. Of course, they might need minor corrections when the RFCbis is published but they already now can benefit from this work.

An alternative approach could be to incorporate this draft in RFCbis document as an abstract section but that will seriously enlarge the size of the document.

BR, Maxim

________________________________
From: tsvwg <[e-mail]> on behalf of Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 4:03 PM
To: Michael Tuexen
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Eric Rescorla's Abstain on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06: (with COMMENT)



On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Michael Tuexen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> On 4. Jul 2018, at 01:31, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]<mailto:ekr@rtfm..com>> wrote:
>
> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06: Abstain
>
> 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://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I agree with Adam and Spencer. This is just an incredibly user-hostile
Not sure if Adam and Spencer are in agreement here...
> presentation of this information, in particular:
>
>  Note that when reading this document one must use care to assure that
>  a field or item is not updated further on within the document.  Since
>  this document is a historical record of the sequential changes that
>  have been found necessary at various inter-op events and through
>  discussion on the list, the last delta in the text is the one which
>  should be applied.
>
> This seems like good input to a -bis but should not be published as-is..
So I guess you are suggesting to drop this document and work on an
RFC4960bis instead,

Yes.


because there is no need to document the reasons
for the changes?

I think generally not, though in some specific cases, it might be useful, where
it's substantive.

-Ekr


Best regards
Michael
>
>