So, I am a bit confused, just to summarize my understanding so far :- - if the document status is standards track, then there is no issue. - if the document status is informational, then remove the RFC 2119 usage. Then I am afraid the message of the draft becomes at the best dubious. - retain it as informational, but use "updates 1122". Can this be done? I am not sure..
How do we move forward on this one? -Anantha > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 9:10 PM > To: Wesley Eddy > Cc: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth); draft-ietf-tcpm- > [email protected]; General Area Review Team; David Harrington > Subject: Re: Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04.txt > > Hi Wes, > > > In TCPM, it was determined that RFC 1122 is not wrong or flawed, just > > potentially unclear. > > That's a judgment call that the WG's entitled to make, of course. > > (Side comment: it would be useful for reviewers outside the WG > if writeups noted why a document was in a particular category > when there might be some question about it.) > > > There are many non-standards-track RFCs that include 2119 language, > > True, where the document is self-contained (e.g. an Experimental > specification). But it goes with my previous point - either it's > normative, in which case it should be standards track, or it isn't, > in which case using RFC 2119 seems inconsistent. > > This is definitely IMHO but I see from Dave Harrington's DISCUSS that > he has the same questions. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > > > > On 2011-06-05 15:08, Wesley Eddy wrote: > > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
