Folks,
In the short term, I agree with Carlos. This short draft is probably worth the
effort.
In the long term, I agree with Bob and Herbie. There are better approaches.
How does the following sound? The IETF establishes a wiki. The wiki has a page
for each of its major protocols or major technologies. For example, one for IP,
one for ICMP, one for BGP, etc.
Each page follows the style of the ICMP draft. It is essentially an annotated
bibliography, telling you which RFCs you should read if you want to become an
expert on this protocol or technology.
The wiki page would be different from the WG home page because:
*
It can persist, even when the WG has long ago shut down
*
It can reference RFCs that were produced by other WGs
*
It can omit less important RFCs
The wiki can be developed in increments. We can develop the IP page this year
and the ICMP page next year.
Maybe ADs could decide which wiki pages are needed and who moderates each page.
We might even have a victimteer (like the independent stream editor) moderate
the entire wiki.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
________________________________
From: Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 8:35 PM
To: Robinson, Herbie <[email protected]>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[email protected]>; Ron Bonica <[email protected]>;
[email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Int-area] Re: New Version Notification for
draft-bonica-intarea-icmp-op-exp-00.txt
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 10:07 AM
> To: Bob Hinden <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> Cc: Ron Bonica
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
> [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> >> On Jun 20, 2024, at 3:49 AM, tom petch
> >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Ron Bonica
> >> <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> To
> > unsubscribe send an
> > email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To
> unsubscribe send an email to int-
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
