Subject: [tsvwg] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 02:41:24 -0700

Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello,

Thank you for writing down this Document. I see the value of documenting fixes
to known issues so I support this initiative but I somehow also share Alexey's
view. I'm not sure an RFC is the best means to achieve that goal. A living wiki
page would have been more suitable in my opinion. I'm not an expert in that
field, but what if a new issue is uncovered in the future? That would render
this Document incomplete. Will a new draft be published that Updates this
Document?

I am a bit more concerned by the relationship between this document and the
Erratas for 4960, and by the possible "discrepancy" its publication, with all
things staying as they are, would introduce. 4 Erratas for 4960 are in Reported
state, yet 3 of these 4 are addressed in this Document. Also, one of these 3
has a resolution which differs from the proposed Errata text. Finally, only
this errata is referenced by its ID in the Document. Spencer the first two
points might be more in your hands than in the authors' but I wonder if
something should be done about it as part of publishing this Document. More
details below:

3.47.  Clarification of Gap Ack Blocks in SACK Chunks
The Errata for this is https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5202
The text change proposed by the draft is different than the one proposed by the
Errata. Note that I am not arguing which one is better.

3.24.  SACK.Delay Not Listed as a Protocol Parameter
The Errata for this is https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4656

3.9.  Miscellaneous Typos
The Errata for this is https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5003

The not discussed Reported errata is https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4876

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 13:01:08 +0200

> On 3. Jul 2018, at 11:41, Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
If the IETF provides this and make sure it is available in the future,
it is an option. Once we have replaced RFC 4960 by the upcoming RFC 4960bis,
someone might ask why something has change and how... This is what this
document can provide.
> this Document incomplete. Will a new draft be published that Updates this
No... Once this document is done, we plan to start working on RFC 4960 bis
and that work is pretty easy. Integrate the changes of this document.
However, if in that time another issue comes up, we'll fix it, I guess.
However, we try to find a good point of time to do this.

We did this once in the past, when we worked on RFC 4460, which is the
errata document to RFC 2960 and then published RFC 4960 = RFC 2960 + RFC 4460.
> something should be done about it as part of publishing this Document. More
I double checked during the IETF LC (some brought this up) and made sure
all erratas reported to the errata web site are covered. The text this
document uses might not be the one in the original errata, since the
WG might have improved it. But I can not change what the reporter suggested.

I do see the general point. I tried to address all reported erratas in this
document. You can see an overview in
https://github.com/sctplab/rfc4960bis/blob/master/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata.xml#L131

However, I don't control the erratas, can only discuss this on the mailing
list and provide some resolution in this document.

But things are consistent in my view.
> Errata. Note that I am not arguing which one is better.
Errata 5202 was reported and targets two things:

1. The gap ack blocks in a SACK should not overlap
2. The gap ack blocks in a SACK should be increasing.

It was actually intended the the gap block don't overlap. That was already
clarified in section 3.47 before the errata was filed.
However, it was never intended that the gap ack blocks are increasing.
That is why there is no text related to this.

Errata 5202 was reported on December 13th, 2017. I responded stating the
above and provided some explanations on the same day to [email-masked].

I don't think we need to use the text provided in that errata.

However, I have added

<t>This issue was reported as part of an Errata for <xref target="RFC4960"/> with
Errata ID 5202.</t>

to make things clear. See
https://github.com/sctplab/rfc4960bis/commit/62ec4089c8d6c1598482257aa97e872fc5090e0e
> The Errata for this is https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4656
Correct. And this is stated in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06#section-3.24.1
> The Errata for this is https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5003
Correct. This was already catched and fixed for the next revision:
https://github.com/sctplab/rfc4960bis/commit/b8e4e8c6c558c66dab4530cce1b0b5af8eea9b0f
> The not discussed Reported errata is https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4876
That is correct. It was reported on December 1st, 2016.
I responded on December 9th, 2016 to [email-masked] that is doesn't really
make sense to me and provided some explanation.
On the same day the reporter answered on the mailing list closed with
"Please disregard my erratum report."

So I don't see any reason for changing RFC 4960 and adding a section to this
document to describe it.

Best regards
Michael

---

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 15:16:40 +0200

Hello Michael,

thanks for your feedback. I think we are in line.
regarding the wiki, tsvwg has one here: 
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/tsvwg/wiki

My comment on a future issue is indeed a bit moot if you plan on 
producing the bis rapidly.

What I meant to say/ask was whether the 4 "Reported" erratas should be 
moved to some other state (Verified/Held For Document Update/Rejected) 
such that this draft and the Errata web page be in synch.

I'll let Spencer decide on this.

-m

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 16:25:28 +0200

> On 3. Jul 2018, at 15:16, Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Michael,
> 
Yepp, I think so.
> regarding the wiki, tsvwg has one here: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/tsvwg/wiki
The problem is how long it will be available. I guess it will be available for
the time we will be working on the RFC 4960bis document, but I would prefer
to have the information available for the time RFC 4960bis is available.
> My comment on a future issue is indeed a bit moot if you plan on producing the bis rapidly.
I understand and agree.
> 
> What I meant to say/ask was whether the 4 "Reported" erratas should be moved to some other state (Verified/Held For Document Update/Rejected) such that this draft and the Errata web page be in synch.
When finalising this document I looked them up. Since I have no control
about the official erratas I guess this needs some actions from Spencer...

Best regards
Michael

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 20:35:53 -0500

Hi, Martin,

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:25 AM Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> moved to some other state (Verified/Held For Document Update/Rejected) such
> that this draft and the Errata web page be in synch.

Thank you for raising this issue especially. I've been involved in so few
-bis documents that it's never occurred to me to wonder about the errata.

I believe the correct new status should be "Verified", because the working
group has agreed to the new text (in three of the four cases), and I
rejected the fourth as having been withdrawn by the submitter.

So now, we should be in sync.

Spencer

> >>> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> >>> The not discussed Reported errata is
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4876