Michael,
I am sometimes confused with the thinking of *some* TCPM work group
members esp., for such simple drafts(harmless drafts). Now, what if it
is a standards track document, would it be harmful to the internet? Or
if it is informational it would be considered less harmful ? I simply
don't get the point.
At this point I wanted to mention that we have really removed a lot
of contents like API guidance for implemenmters etc., from this draft.
The draft as it stands now is purely a clarification of RFC 1122's
persist behavior which was the original intent for which there was a
reasonable consensus. The WG members need to explain clearly why they
are nervous about making it a standards track, FWIW, lets take the
urgent pointer clarification RFC which was recently issued (RFC 6093),
that is a standards track document. It simply clarifies the intentions
and usage of urgent pointer, and it is harmless. This document is very
similar to that, IMO.
$0.02,
-Anantha
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SCHARF, Michael [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 1:39 PM
> To: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth); 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
>
> 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
