Hi,
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 09:08:04PM +0000, Chris Morrow wrote:
> ( 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?
I understand Benjamin's message to more be a matter of publication
procedure: draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis is a complete specification, to me
it makes sense to change the XML header to something along the lines of:
<rfc category="std"
docName="draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-08"
obsoletes="6486"
ipr="trust200902">
> > 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.
If 6486 is to be obsoleted, Benjamin's suggestion to add a section
"chanes since" makes sense and should be added. I can take a stab at
some draft text if there are no other volunteers.
Chris - can you check with authors to avoid duplicate work?
Kind regards,
Job
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
