I am not sure whether there was or would be WG consensus for standards track. We might have to ask the WG that question.
Compared to that, removing RFC 2119 language could probably be a much simpler and faster solution. And I don't understand why that would affect the content of the draft that much. Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 9:21 AM > To: Brian E Carpenter; Wesley Eddy > Cc: [email protected]; General Area > Review Team; David Harrington > Subject: RE: Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04.txt > > 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 > > >> ANA> 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
