Subject: RE: [newtrk] RE: comments on "What Standards"

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 03:38:04 +0200

Hi Pekka,

> I think this is incorrect: Updates/Obsoletes are available for every 
> specification -- 

They are available for proposed & full - are they applicable for Info &
BCP?  I don't know.

> so it is possible to create some "dependency" trees 
> automatically based on that information.  Whether that's useful or not 
> is another issue.  That is, an important specification on "label" can 
> appear without having to Update or Obsolete any RFC under a "label".

Well, now I am wading into uncharted, shark-filled waters, but when
you said dependency, I realised that we have dependencies on Normative
References (which aren't marked as such for most older RFCs).  We've
run into this with the IPv6 Nodes Requirement doc, and I have noted
problems in some other specs, even where there is not clarity with
Updates / Obsoletes / Replaces - where the dependency tree starts to
breakdown.  However, one can look to the current TCPM WG as a place
where the dependency tree for TCP has gotten far to convoluted, so
a WG has needed to be spun up to sort out exactly what TCP is ...

John

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:49:00 +0900

... and well-meaning people who want to use our standards believe us,
and implement TCP as STD 7, which is only 793 without congestion
avoidance, large windows or SACK!

Spencer, who just tripped over a product that supported "SMTP" -
because they had RFC 821... it only gets better, guys.

From: <[email-masked]>

However, one can look to the current TCPM WG as a place
where the dependency tree for TCP has gotten far to convoluted, so
a WG has needed to be spun up to sort out exactly what TCP is ...

.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 20:59:24 -0500 (EST)

> They are available for proposed & full - are they applicable for Info &

they are available in any case

Scott
.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:01:05 -0500 (EST)

> a WG has needed to be spun up to sort out exactly what TCP is ...

note that this was done in rfc 1122 but was 
	1/ every protocol (not a seperate RFC per protocol) so hard
	   to update
	2/ never updated

Scott
.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 11:14:51 +0900

Scott,

Thanks for the background (and please keep us honest).

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Bradner" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:59 AM
Subject: RE: [newtrk] RE: comments on "What Standards"

> newtrk
resources:_____________________________________________________
> mhonarc archive:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 14:41:54 +0900

> They are available for proposed & full - are they applicable for Info &

Check the index. RFC 1766 (a PS) was obsoleted by RFC 3066 (a BCP) and 3282 
(a Draft Standard).
RFC 2481 (Experimental) was obsoleted by RFC 3168 (a Proposed).
RFC 2854 (an Info) obsoleted RFC 1866 (a Proposed, I believe).
I can't remember a case where I cared about an Info updating an Info, but I 
would be surprised if none existed.

.