Subject: [tsvwg] Ben Campbell's Abstain on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 18:33:52 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06: Abstain

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Alexey that I don't see the value of publishing this, and am
concerned it might even be slightly harmful.  The approach seems unfriendly to
implementers, who would get much more benefit from an "RFC4960bis" draft.  At
best it seems like an intermediate step in the creation of such a bis draft. (I
note similar concerns from the Gen-ART and OPSDIR reviewers)

I don't expect the decision to publish this in it's current form to change, so
I am balloting "abstain" and getting out of the way.

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 07:56:27 +0200

> On 3. Jul 2018, at 03:33, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
Yes, that is the plan. Once this document is finished, we'll start working
on the 4960bis document based on the changes described in this document.
We did this in the past. RFC 4460 describes the Erratas of RFC 2960. After
RFC 4460 was done, work on RFC 4960 was started. So basically
RFC 4960 = RFC 2960 + RFC 4460.
One advantage of this was that people wondering why something has changed
between RFC 2960 and RFC 4960 can look it up, even how changes evolved by
looking at the versions on the Internet Drafts resulting in RFC 4460.
This was useful to some people in the past...

Best regards
Michael