The process used by SCTP is described in the shepherd write up. Gorry > On 11 Jun 2018, at 11:49, Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwaelder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder > Review result: Has Issues > > 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? > > 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). > > 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). > > Editorial: > > - s/wrong order of of/wrong order of/
