Wes, > This document contains no protocol and alters no protocol.
True, but it makes a strong statement about what implementations must do. I had a quick look, and most implementation guidelines are Informational, although one or two (e.g. RFC 5625) are BCP. It would be a lot clearer to a new reader if the title indicated that it's an implementation guideline - I certainly started reading on the assumption that it was a protocol update, which as you say, it isn't. I'm sure the IESG will come back with a proposed resolution. Regards Brian On 2011-06-06 15:20, Wesley Eddy wrote: > On 6/5/2011 8:18 PM, Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote: >> 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. >> > > > This document contains no protocol and alters no protocol. > > I don't agree with attempting any comparison with RFC 6093. That RFC > changed the specification of the urgent pointer, whereas this > draft does not change the TCP specification one iota. > > It's hard to see how Standards Track is appropriate for this draft. > > I agree with Michael that "MUST" versus "must" should make little > difference to a reader; they'll get the point. > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
