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

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:31:14 -0700

Folks,

The procedure Michael summarizes was presented to the WG and given a hum, 
in fact, but then some SCTP interoperability meetings intervened in which
finishing touches were given to the actual deltas contained in the document.

One point that I intended to ask the editors (or perhaps may
have suggested with too soft a voice, in the past), is for the 
document to describe its own procedure clearly.  So, instead of saying:

   This document updates RFC2960 [6] and text within this document
   supersedes the text found in RFC2960 [6].

It needs to say:

   This document is a compilation of all the deltas and errata...
   Its name is a convention...
   etc...

In its current form, and as an Informational, it won't be able to
supersede and update RFC 2960.  That will only be done by 2960bis.
If we want the current sentence to be true, we need to use the other
procedure, making this document a PS, and then obsoleting it
(really, obviating it) with 2960bis.

In either case, to underline something in Michael's summary, 2960bis 
is to be derived from this document by editing alone.  So do consider
this in your reviewing.

Allison

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:00:13 -0600

Allison,

It is difficult to comment on the editing of RFC2960bis in advance of
an rfc2960bis draft.

Why not the other way around?  That is, keep the document as a draft
until rfc2960bis is complete and then publish it as an informational
"changes" RFC as a companion to the new PS.  That would be more useful
in the end.

A prematurely published informational document that represents some (but
not all, and not recent) deltas between rfc2960 and the new PS is not
useful as anything other than an internet draft until the new document
is complete.

And IMO there is little point reviewing what will be yet another
non-normative document.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[email-masked]    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:06:20 +0200

Brian,

I think it is better to comment the IG, since people already
know this document and I assume that almost all issues with
RFC 2960 are covered.

Coming back to technical issues: Do you have any technical
issues with RFC 2960, which are not already covered in the IG?

Best regards
Michael

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:37:35 -0600

Michael,

I have some issues (techincal and requirements language)
with the IG if and when it updates RFC2960.

For an "Informational" RFC, the issues are moot.  Whey your
ready to apply the updates to the PS, I'll haul them out.

It is probably missing some discussion surrounding CMT and
its potential for negative effects.

--brian

---

From: Randall Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:17:04 -0400

>    Its name is a convention...

Ok..

How about:
<t>
    This document is a compilation of all the deltas and errata forn
<xref target="RFC2960">RFC2960</xref>. Its name is a convention that
has been used in other standards bodies.
</t>

And if Joe does not like the title.. I have no problems with
changing it to some other one

R

-- 
Randall Stewart
803-345-0369 <or> 815-342-5222(cell)