I have opinions about RFC 8540 that disqualify me from detailed discussions about specifics in this thread, but ...
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 7:03 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 08-Jun-19 06:51, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> John, I haven't read your whole document, and you mention
> RFC 8540 specifically. I'm guessing that this is the document that pushed
> you to think about this?
>
>> The WG suggested in its summary for IETF
>> Last Call for what became RFC 8540 that an errata listing like that
>> provided by RFCs 4460 and 8540 is helpful in producing replacements
>> for the original documents [LC8540-Statement] but there is no
>> evidence that the same purpose could not be served by retaining the
>> same list as an Internet-Draft until the actual replacement document
>> is ready to be published and then either discarding that I-D or, if
>> the WG felt a need to do so, incorporating the errata listing as an
>> appendix in the final document.
>
> As far as I can see, 8540 was produced by the tsvwg, and went through IETF
> process. Yes, it's informational, rather than standards track ("Updates"),
> but that seems somewhat immaterial to me.
>
> I am not an expert in SCTP or the issues reported, but my guess is that the
> situation is that the issues reported do not affect all users, but that they
> affect enough that having some clear text is useful.
>
> What you suggest, that it remain an ID would seem to me, to elevate IDs to be
> equivalent to RFCs.
>
> I couldn't puzzle out what your Conclusion was. Maybe if you'd dealt with
> another example, it would help. I was involved in NEWTRK, and I think you
> probably need to hit the reader over the head harder here.
>
> ||ugh Daniel's once lamented that it every software release needs a label so
> that one can refer to it properly, but that it's often hard to know which
> releases are good ones until after they get a label. He described what he
> wanted was a kind of "weather report", which tells you how things worked out
> earlier in the "day". I think that you (and NEWTRK) are really asking for
> this.
>
> It seems to me that RFC8540 needs to be a weather report, and that we really
> need a new kind of document for this.
For me a big question is whether weather reports should use RFC2119 language,
which makes it easy for an outsider to mistake them for standards.
But yes, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-isdbis-00
I don't think that ignoring that idea has served the IETF well.
I couldn't agree more about this one, and especially (in this case) about the opportunity to do a better job of errata handling than we do today, using something like https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-isdbis-00#section-11.2.2). I note that it's only been within the past year or three that we've added "Errata Exist" hyperlinks on the HTML version of RFCs, and that was a Great Leap Forward at the time.
Spencer
Brian
