Hi Christer,
As document shepherd for this SCTP process, I'll have a first go at
responding. I think that for RFC4960 the Errata as filed still apply.
See below. The document authors can of course also propose answers to
these questions....
Gorry
On 04/06/2018 10:17, Christer Holmberg wrote:
Re-sent due to wrong e-mail address.
Hi,
I have also looked at this document, and there are things that I have
think are unclear:
Q1: It is Informational, and it does not update RFC 4960. Instead, it just
seems to list the erratas (but without even referencing them, as noted by
Paul). I think that it should be made very clear that this document is
only for guidance, and that implementers shall use the actual erratas for
the actual updates.
The document write-up describes the process that has been used with SCTP
updates, and this document follows this plan - this is information to
help the WG prepare a bis document, that we plan to populate with these
edits to the spec and adopt as a WG item in Montreal.
I'm OK with adding text to say this - and see later.
Q2: Unless I’ve missed it, there is no indication whether the draft only
includes the Verified erratas, or also others - in which case the modified
text in one or more erratas may still be changed (erratas may even be
rejected).
Q3: While the draft name contains “-errata-“, it is unclear whether the
draft only covers issues for which erratas has been filed, or whether
other issues (e.g., issues that have been discussed on the list) are also
included.
There are other issues discussed on the list, and the text proposed here
is what the WG has discussed and finally agreed upon to appear in the
.bis document. It would be OK to add something about that.
Q4: When looking at the changes, at least in one case I can’t find an
associated errata. For example, section 3.34 is associated with Section
10.1. I only find one errata (#5003) associated with Section 10.1, but the
changes in that errata does not match what is in the draft. A reference to
the actual errata would help.
I think it would be good to check that Errata refs are included where
applicable, if we added the text you suggest in Q3.
Q5: The text says that the draft includes issues found since publication.
Now, there may be more issues after this draft has been published, so it
should say something like “at the time of publishing this document”.
I agree, and I really should have spotted that- Sorry and thanks for
noting this. I suggest as this ID now approaches publication to be
clearer about the intended plans, by adding a para of text (to be
discussed and finalised with my AD and Co-Chairs) to say something like:
The information in this document does not update RFC4640 or the Errata
to that specification. The document is instead provided as input to
preparation of a new document that is expected to be a standards-track
replacement for RFC4960. If approved, the replacement document will
incorporate the updates described here and any other changes needed to
allow this to progress this specification along the standards track.
- and to add a corresponding note in the abstract.
Gorry
Regards,
Christer
On 03/06/18 21:59, "Gen-art on behalf of Paul Kyzivat"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
[[INCOMPLETE, NOT READY TO SEND. PLEASE IGNORE]]
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other
last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2018-06-03
IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-04
IESG Telechat date: ?
Summary:
This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the
review.
Issues:
Major: 1
Minor: 2
Nits: 1
1) MAJOR:
The format of this document disturbs me. According to the abstract:
... This
document provides deltas to RFC4960 and is organized in a time
ordered way. The issues are listed in the order they were brought
up. Because some text is changed several times the last delta in the
text is the one which should be applied.
This format makes the document hard to deal with. A developer who wants
to implement sctp with some or all of the errata fixes will want to work
>from a variant of 4960 that incorporates all of those fixes - a bis. But
it isn't clear how this document helps with that. I don't think you can
start with 4960 and simply apply all the deltas sequentially, because
overlapping changes won't work right.
A developer won't be interested in the order in which errata were
reported. An actual bis document would be more useful to a developer
than this format. Is that not being done because doing so would be more
difficult? Or because it isn't yet certain that these are the correct
fixes?
I think you should give some serious consideration of the most suitable
form for this document, in the context of how it is intended to be used.
2) MINOR (maybe MAJOR):
Discovering where one change is impacted by another change is hard.
I dug into the details of the document to understand how many places
there are actually overlaps between the changes in multiple sections.
(It took a lot of work to do this.) I found five of these:
- 3.1 / 3.23
- 3.3 / 3.43
- 3.5 / 3.10
- 3.6 / 3.23
- 3.24 / 3.32
(I don't guarantee that this list is exhaustive.)
Of these, I think only one (3.1/3.23) explicitly indicates the conflict,
and it only indicates it within 3.23.
Most of the changes don't have any conflicts. And some of the conflicts
could be removed by being more precise in indicating the change being
made. In cases where this isn't possible, the presence of the conflict
should be indicated in each section that has a conflict, with cross
references. IOW, shift the burden of detecting conflicts from the reader
to the document.
3) MINOR:
Errata Tracking: Apparently each subsection of section 3 covers one
erratum. But the errata numbers are not mentioned. Each section ought to
reference the errata number it responds to.
4) NIT:
In section 3.35 (DSCP Changes) the change to section 10.1 isn't properly
indicated. It shows 'Old text' twice rather than 'Old text' and 'New
text'.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
