Just chiming in as AD ... On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:18 AM Christer Holmberg < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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! :) > Your AD agrees with adding words like the ones you're discussing here, once you figure out exactly what words should be added. Spencer > > 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" > >>>>> <[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
