I wonder if a more useful way to do this would be a cross reference index maintained by IANA?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 10:07 AM > To: Bob Hinden <[email protected]> > Cc: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Int-area] Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica- > intarea-icmp-op-exp-00.txt > > [EXTERNAL SENDER: This email originated from outside of Stratus > Technologies. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the > sender and know the content is safe.] > > 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 > int- > [email protected] _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
