Hi Bob, Tom,

> On Jun 21, 2024, at 01:06, Bob Hinden <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 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 agree with this assessment.  

Certainly no Standards Track, BCP-but-not-fully-quite. 

> 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.

At the same time, I can see this document being useful published as 
Informational. I do not see a default need to update it with every ICMP-related 
RFC, but maybe batching meaningful or significant changes. I wonder if there’s 
a loose parallel with the tcp roadmap Informational RFC, which is even cited 
from the tcp spec. 

Thanks!

Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
Excuze typofraphicak errows

> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to