Warren - Thanx for the thoughtful (and entertaining 😊) review.
I have no objection to adding a forward reference to the "changes" section for both this document and draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis. My only concern is whether this violates the guideline that the "abstract should be complete in itself". Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 8:22 AM > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; > cho...@chopps.org; cho...@chopps.org > Subject: Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-02: (with > COMMENT) > > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-02: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot- > positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I initially wrote this up as a DISCUSS position, but made it NoObjection > instead because it didn't strictly fit the DISCUSS criteria -- that said, I > *do* think that it is important and would really appreciate it if you'd > strongly consider addressing it (it's also IMO a trivial update!). > > I reviewed this document on a plane, and had a bunch of comments... but it > was > only when I came to ballot that and I saw John Scudder's note of "Note that > this document is a tightly-scoped update to RFC 8919. Prudent reviewers will > focus on the diff vs. 8919 [1], and *not* try to do a detailed/full document > review." - it would have been great to know that before reading the > document! > > Knowing what has changed in a -bis is really important - it lets the reader > know if they actually have to bother reading the new document. This > information > *does* exist in this document, but it is buried in the RFC equivalent of the > bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on > the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.” (Section 9, between Security > Considerations and References) > > Normally, in an "Updates" document we'd say (in the Abstract) something like > "This document updates RFC 8919 by x and y and z". This is somewhat harder > to > do in a grammatically correct manner with Obsoletes, but perhaps something > like: "This document obsoletes RFC 8919; the changes are documented in > Section > 9"? (I'm planning on balloting the same on the OSPF version of this doc). > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
