On 9/12/2018 11:26 PM, Carlos Pignataro wrote:
I found the rational and specific details on what this document "Updates" from
three previous RFCs to be lacking, and confusing.
Carlos,
Thanks for your review.
I don't want to get caught up in the neverending discussion of exactly
what constitutes an "Update". This is being discussed right now on the
IETF list, and it's quite clear that there is no consensus. As usual,
every possible opinion is dogmatically held by someone ;-)
The introduction of the expl-track draft explicitly points out a number
of situations that are not adequately addressed in the prior RFCs, and
for which the prior RFCs do not provide clear guidance. This is a
potential source of interoperability problems.
The introduction also indicates a number of new features that are added
by the draft.
Anyone implementing RFCs 6514, 6625, and/or 7524 will certainly be
well-advised to read this draft in order to (a) make sure that they
properly handle the situations that are not explicitly addressed by the
prior RFCs, and (b) to make sure that they are aware of the new features
so they can make an informed decision of whether to implement them.
I think this justifies the "Updates" status.
I recommend an "Updates from RFC XYZ" section in which there is a textual
explanation and ideally Old/New specifics on how this document updates previous
RFCs.
I think the introduction covers this in the appropriate level of detail;
I really don't know what could be added.
Eric
