Just commenting on the non-editorial portion: On 6/4/2011 5:51 PM, Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
... Why is this Informational? If it matters, it should be a Standards Track document updating RFC 1122. ANA> I agree, it should have been a standards track document since it clarifies the RFC 1122 wording. I believe the TCPM chairs and WG group had ANA> approved us to come up with a informational RFC that clarifies the intention of RFC 1122 regarding persist state. We have no problems making ANA> this a standards track, I'll leave it to the chairs to comment on this.
In TCPM, it was determined that RFC 1122 is not wrong or flawed, just potentially unclear. The current draft is a clarification rather than actually augmenting, correcting, extending, or updating any of the specs and guidance in 1122. As I recall, Informational was purposefully chosen by TCPM; this is more implementation guidance than anything warranting standards track. As for adding Updates 1122, this may be a good idea; I don't recall if it was specifically discussed by the WG. I noticed at least one other RFC which includes clarifications is Informational and doesn't Update its parent documents (RFC 4718 is the example)
If it's not a Standards Track document, why is it using RFC 2119 language? ANA> I think we need to remove the RFC 2119 language if the target is informational.
There are many non-standards-track RFCs that include 2119 language, so it's unclear what the hangup is here. That said, I think either way, the meaning of this document will be clear, so don't have strong personal feelings one way or the other. -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
