On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 05:22:17PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote: > > 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? The process is a little different for IETF- vs non-IETF-stream documents, but basically, yes, an AD acts as Verifier for the erratum. They can, however, apply arbitrary changes to the "NEW" text and NOTE at that time, so it is in some sense encouraged fro the submission of the errata candidate to spark discussion on the relevant list(s) and evolution to a consensus text that can be used to verify the erratum. On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 08:25:49AM -0700, Randall Stewart wrote: > > > On 6/11/18 8:22 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > And most importantly it scopes the work of 4960 bis to not open things > up to all sort of things.. > > i.e. if it was not in this document you can't change things in the bis (or > at least you better have a very very very good reason too). Well, only from a certain point of view. Once the bis document is up, it's all fair game for review and changes, from a process point of view. If it was going for full Internet Standard as well, then there would be a process reason to avoid "spurious" changes, though. -Ben
