Folks,
Agreed. BCP is better.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
________________________________
From: Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 10:06 AM
To: Bob Hinden <[email protected]>
Cc: tom petch <[email protected]>; Ron Bonica <[email protected]>;
[email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Re: New Version Notification for
draft-bonica-intarea-icmp-op-exp-00.txt
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
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]
