That's an interesting idea, Herbie. Thanks for sharing. My view is that the value of the document exceeds the collection of pointers, and sits on the textual explanations by which those pointers are included (and index built). In fact, a contextless index might be more confusing that helpful.
Further, looking at the dates from the normative references, I also expect the document to be more stable than might otherwise appear. Thanks, Carlos. On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:51 AM Robinson, Herbie < [email protected]> wrote: > 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]
