+1 On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 12:01 PM tom petch <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Christian Hopps < > [email protected]> > Sent: 24 February 2022 14:02 > Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> writes: > > > On February 23, 2022 at 8:35:03 PM, Christian Hopps wrote: > > > > > > Chris: > > > > Hi! > > > > > >> I support these changes, and thanks for taking this up. > > > > :-) > > > > > >> I guess it makes sense to not go full-in and re-spin the base docs if > there > >> literally are no other changes (although one wonders if it will actually > >> change things like CLIs if we don't). > >> > >> That said, quite a few errata exist for both of these documents. > >> > >> Maybe an even better way forward with these types of inclusivity > updates, for > >> base documents with errata, would be to re-spin the base doc > incorporating > >> the existing errata *and* the improved terminology. > > > > Hmmm... That sounds like a lot of work for a couple of words. > > > > The concern with opening up a big document like rfc2328/rfc5340 is that > other > > things may creep in: "let's fix this", "let's add that", "let's include > the > > Updates", "what about security?", etc. > > It's wouldn't be a lot of work and those fears need not be present if we > start the process with things clearly defined. "The *only* changes allowed > are to incorporate the already accepted errata, and the terminology change; > no other changes will be accepted". That's it, nothing more allowed. That > would be the first thing for the WG to agree on, the rest would be > editorial changes and shouldn't require much time at all then. > > This shouldn't be hard to do, and if it is, maybe we're just doing it > wrong. :) > > <tp> > > The problem I have always had with RFC2328, rendering it unusable, is the > formatting where spaces have been replace with tabs, at least on every copy > I have downloaded from the RFC Editor web site, and several years of trying > have never yielded the magic formula as to what the tab settings should be > for the document to print in a usable format. > > I would engage with a 2328bis > > Tom Petch > > Thanks, > Chris. > > > > > Adam Roach wrote a draft [1] that describes a process for changes like > this > > (terminology + errata). The IESG has used it a couple of times, but it > is not > > formal. It would be up to the AD to approve, communicate with the IESG, > etc. > > > > > > [BTW, I am not the AD for this WG, nor am I acting as an AD when > discussing this document, and I will recuse myself from IESG discussions > about it.] > > > > > > Alvaro. > > > > > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-roach-bis-documents > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
