Tom,
> On Jun 20, 2024, at 3:49 AM, tom petch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>
> Sent: 20 June 2024 01:25
>
> Folks,
>
> Please take a look at this draft. There is nothing new or shocking in it. It
> is mostly an annotated bibliography regarding ICMP.
>
> I prepared this document so that it can be referenced by other documents. A
> document that mentions ICMP can reference this document in order to avoid
> repeating ICMP details in its pages.
>
> If nobody has any comments regarding this document, I will ask for a call for
> adoption in a month or so.
>
> <tp>
>
> I note that the status is Informational which limits the scope of use unless
> and until it is added to the well-known list of Informational documents that
> might have been better off as Standards Track for ease of Reference!
>
I agree that Informational isn’t quite right for it’s intended purpose:
"A document that mentions ICMP can reference this document in order to
avoid repeating ICMP details in its pages”
But it’s not Standard's track either as it doesn’t define a protocol. The doc
says:
“...this document does not introduce any new protocols or operational
procedures"
I think it’s closer to a BCP, but not an exact fit either.
I appreciate the work the authors put into this to summarize all of the related
ICMP RFCs, that is useful. However, I am not yet convinced that this can
achieve its goal listed above. If published, it’s also going to need to be
updated every time a new ICMP related RFC is published.
Bob
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
