Subject: RE: IESG Comments about ICMPv6 draft: Obsoleting 2780

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:22:38 -0600

Allison,

Thanks for the fast response.  Please see my comments inline..

> > This specification obsoletes 2780's IANA instructions for ICMPv6.
> > The IANA is requested to use the guidelines provided in this
> > specfication for assigning ICMPv6 type and code values as soon
> > as this specification is published as a RFC.
> 
> This text is very good.

Good then I will add this to the next rev.

> Updating an RFC often means just updating a part. 

True but there is more to it in this particular case.
See below.

> it's important for
> for someone who want to do a registry action about ICMPv6 and may
> look at RFC 2780.  Because you tell RFC Editor that this spec
> updates RFC 2780, there will be a pointer in the index from
> RFC 2780 to this spec, guiding the person here.  It's a help
> if someone is doing an RFC-index based search for how to register.

RFC 2780 provides guidelines for more than ICMP (IPv4, IPv6,
TCP, UDP) and this ICMPv6 draft updates only section 6 and 7 
(ICMP).  So will it not be wrong to say that this spec updates
2780.  What if someone was looking to do a registry action
about TCP and they looked at the index and looked at the
note that 2780 has been updated by this spec and couldn't
find guidelines for TCP in this spec ?

Am I making my concern clear ?

> My comment didn't mean you needed to add more statements
> about obsoleting RFC 2463 to the draft, just add the one
> fact to the other.  And it would be good to ask your AD put
> the RFC obsoleted and RFC updated info in the writeup, so the
> RFC Editor doesn't have to dig it out of the spec.

Margaret, could you please add this info to the writeup ?

Regards
Mukesh

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:40:08 -0800

Mukesh,

Well, let me try again, we often have documents that update only part
of the earlier document.

In this case, we need people to know when the see RFC 2780
in the index that there is another RFC that modifies some of its
content.  If this isn't done, they'll pick up RFC 2780 and be
misled into asking for the RFC 2780 rules for ICMPv6.  This causes
delay and problems until they get straightened out to get to the
right rules for ICMPv6.  If you look at the RFC Editor definition
for Updates, it does not say how much of the RFC has to be updated
(see below).

> TCP, UDP) and this ICMPv6 draft updates only section 6 and 7=20

  The RFC Editor has the following formal rule (in their almost approved
  draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08.txt)

 Updates

 Specifies an earlier document whose contents are modified or
 augmented by the new document.  The new document cannot be
 used alone, it can only be used in conjunction with the
 earlier document.

This says nothing about how much or how little of the earlier 
document the new document updates.

Does this give you enough help on the update point?  Margaret,
this ok? 

Allison