On Jun 9, 2019, at 00:23, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I’m currently proposing to do a similar document for CoRE. > > sounds reasonable. Care to comment on your views of the relative effort of > doing this vs a -bis document? The bis document is fine if you can ignore the implementer community for a while and then come back and do the bis. This is not what we wanted to do; we wanted to have a live document that had the fixes dynamically added to it, and that is only in time getting the full IETF consensus process. (We had a pretty interesting first ROHC interop [“bay cough”], where we had two camps that had implemented some boring protocol parser detail in a different way, where both camps could point to text that supported their position. This is how getting clarifications agreed and made available in a timely way became part of the culture. [And it also raised our interest in doing formal description techniques for the boring stuff as shown in RFC 4997.]) > Would roach-bis change that for you? We could of course treat the I-D for the bis document as a living document for a few years. Not sure that makes a lot of sense when you have a whole ecosystem of specs working together — do you run coordinated roach-bis documents? The point of a corrections and clarifications document is that it calls out those corrections and clarifications specifically, not by simply changing the original document, but also providing context and rationale. Grüße, Carsten
