Hi, >>> 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. >> I am ok with the two first sentences. >> >> But, I don’t think you can make the last sentence. This document cannot >> normatively define text for the replacement document, or assume that >> everything will be incorporated: the WG will have to agree on what goes >> into the replacement document once it has been added to the charter etc, >> using normal IETF procedures. >And it wouldn't say those exact words of course! > >If I carefully composed actual text, it would be IETF-compliant;-)
Great! :) All I want is to avoid a situation where someone laters suggests some modified text for the bis, and the reply is that the text in the errata draft has already been agreed upon by the WG to be included in the bis. Regards, Christer >>>>> On 03/06/18 21:59, "Gen-art on behalf of Paul Kyzivat" >>>>> <gen-art-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu> 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 >>>>>> Gen-art@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gen-art mailing list >>>>> Gen-art@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >>> > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
