> On 11. Jun 2018, at 12:49, Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwaelder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder > Review result: Has Issues Hi Jürgen, thanks for your review. See my comments in-line. Best regards Michael > > Let me start this way: I am impressed that tsvwg is able to produce such a > document. I understand that there is a precedence, namely RFC 4460. While > keeping a record of changes is extremely useful, it is not clear whether it is > valuable to go through the effort to publish them as RFCs. (In other WGs, > issue lists like these are often maintained outside the RFC process.) > > Given the number ~50 issues, it is really important to have an RFC 4960bis > but I do not see such a document anywhere. This concerns me. Do we really help > implementors if they have to extract patches from ~80 pages of text to apply > them to RFC 4960? Several issues have already been reported as errata. > Why are errata not found to be sufficient until RFC 4960bis is produced? The implementers wanted to have a document which they can look up the required changes. Most of them are already implemented in the kernel implementations. Most of the time people discussed an issue on the list, agreed on the text and than it was added to the WG document. Not sure this is easily doable with an errata. I mean someone files an errata and than it can be accepted or rejected. But you can't simply evolve the text for an resolution. This is at least how this came up in the past. People filed erratas and then some discussion happened. I'm also not sure how Erratas are handled. I think an AD is involved that, too? > > If I would have a choice, I would rather have an RFC 4960bis with an appendix > providing any explanations for changes that are not trivial (there are also > quite a few editorial changes). It would be a substantial appendix... > > I have marked this with 'has issues' but I am not really having an issue with > the document per se but more with the fact that I do not see an RFC 4960bis > that integrates all the changes. This I consider actually a serious issues - it > is good to have a standards track specification with all the fixes applied > (instead of an informational collection of fixes that people interested must > apply themselves in a meaningful way). The plan was to start with the RFC 4960bis document once this document is an RFC. That work is not too hard and mostly editorial, since the technical work has been done in this document. Best regards Michael > > Editorial: > > - s/wrong order of of/wrong order of/ Fixed for the next revision. >
