Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] WGLC on the SCTPImplementer's Guide (draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-impguide-14.txt)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:26:26 +0300

Rand,

>> One of the problems is that RFCs are forever.  What we should not do 
>> is make confusion for future TSVWGers.  The document is not clear 
>> enough, IMO, in the introduction, about the purpose of the document.
>
>As Scott would say.. please send text :-D

Sure, I can send text.

>
>> Think about this way, if in 3 years, 2960 is revised, someone will 
>> read 2960, this document & 2960-bis. Will this document be clear 
>> enough so that the reader understands what it means? Also, for 
>> documents to become historic, usually another RFC needs to 
>be written 
>> to make it go historic, so approving a document that we know 
>should go 
>> historic in a short time seems like extra work ...
>
>If we explain the up front right.. then maybe keeping it 
>informational is the right thing.. this explains why 2960 became xxxx

That could be one strategy.

john

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg