Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-08.txt> (Manifests for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



( Clarifying question(s) )

On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 03:55:23 +0000,
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> This draft is marked with an "Updates:" relationship to RFC 6486 both in
> the document header and in the shepherd writeup.  But the actual contents
> of the document contain substantial portions of text that are identical to
> RFC 6486, as would be expected from a "bis" document (per the draft name)
> that would replace entirely the original RFC; that relationship is
> typically indicated by an "Obsoletes:" relationship rather than "Updates:".

It sounds like you are saying;

  "Hey, you included a ton of 'copy/paste' text in this -bis,
  stylistically/historically people only put in the -bis the CHANGED
  text, and whatever is required to link it into the original"

I have no idea about this... but does it matter?  I mean, won't the
-bis just be the original with the 'new' content stitched into it
properly?

> Also, I would recommend including a "changes since RFC 6486" section that
> motivates why the document is being updated or replaced.

Ok, this doesn't seem bad :) I think most of the reasoning is stuck in
mailing-list discussions like: "Hey, we did what you said, lots of
sadness... how about we shave the yak a little differently so ops /
theory / practice align better and leave us less balded yaks?" (and
lost packets)

I think we need to either re-engage the author(s) or pawn this off
on the sekret-pen-holder, provided we can provide some linkage text.

thanks!
-chris

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux