I was going to respond offlist, but Brian's already onlist with followups,
so...
I would like to support Jonathan's understanding here.
I thought the Hitchhiker's Guide was very useful when it appeared, and have
reviewed multiple versions of the draft since then. I would like for it to
be "out there", and I would like for each revision to be as helpful as we
can make it.
(1) delaying publication due to REF-HOLD for completed-and-approved
specifications to pass through RFC Editor processing doesn't seem helpful,
while
(2) removing references to completed-and-approved specifications that don't
have RFC numbers assigned seems even LESS helpful.
I see no problem with references to completed-and-approved IDs in an
Informational RFC that we expect to update anyway. My understanding is that
these IDs really ARE stable references - they no longer expire, and are
replaced with "was published as RFC XXXX" boilerplate when an RFC IS
available.
One recent redirection looks like this (appears as
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip6-dsmip-problem-04.txt)
"This Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mip6-dsmip-problem-03.txt, was published as
an Informational RFC, RFC 4977 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4977.txt), on
2007-8-29."
As long as we publish specifications the way we publish them, there's going
to be a delay, measured in months, for significant specifications in RFC
Editor processing/Auth48/etc. REF-HOLD for the Hitchhiker's Guide makes no
sense.
Thanks,
Spencer
From: "Jonathan Rosenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
inline:
Francois Audet wrote:
What about SIPS, which is already in hitchiker's guide, and which is
waiting on outbound because of a normative reference?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 30, 2007 01:01
*To:* Avshalom Houri; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Subject:* RE: [RAI] RAI review of
draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
(As WG chair)
Just a note that I should have included with the WGLC.
The intention with this document is to republish on a recurring
basis, and therefore to keep it up to date (say once a year or so).
The 1st versions is intended to include gruu, outbound and ice, but
apart from that, anything that is not published in that timeframe
will probably be removed unless there is exceptional justification
for keeping it, with the idea that it will appear in the next
version.
This is news to me...
What I thought would happen is that we have references to everything in
the guide, and when the guide appears as an RFC, whatever references are
at RFC status at that time, get RFC numbers. Everything else is referenced
as an I-D.
I think you are suggesting that, instead, when we send this to IESG, we
remove any content and references associated with documents which are not
on track to publication around the same timeframe as hitchhikers guide
itself. Indeed it will require us to change those references to normative
in order to get rfc-editor to do a REF hold on hitchhikers till its
dependencies clear.
If my interpretation is correct, my next question is whether this applies
to just the core specs or all of the specs.
I personally would rather leave the document as is - include everything,
and recognize that some references will be drafts rather than RFCs when
hitchhikers is published. Next round of hitchhikers will have more of them
as RFCs.
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
