On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Frank Ellermann wrote:
C. M. Heard wrote:
The draft is intended to do the same thing for RFC 4181
that RFC 4748 did for RFC 3978. Comments, if any, should
be directed to <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>.
Now that you ask, your patches are straight forward, so why
not simply apply them and publish a complete new 4181bis ?
Patchwork RFCs are IMO ugly. RFC 4748 was a special case,
it was urgent, there was a competing 3978bis draft, and the
IPR WG intends to update RFC 3978 anyway, soon.
A somewhat radical proposal: If your patch is approved you
could transform it into a complete 4181bis in AUTH48, and
let that obsolete 4181. Or is the 4181 situation exacly as
for 4748 + 3978 ?
The situation for RFC 4181 is like this: new copyright language
will be required in IETF MIB documents as of the beginning of
next month, so we need to get an update out ASAP. The original
plan was to issue a complete 4181bis, but the person who has
volunteered to take over the editing duties is busy with other
things, so I proposed the patch as an interim solution. (Note
that we don't have xml source for this document, so the first
job for the new editor is creating it ... not a trivial task.)
My hope and expectation is that there will be a complete 4181bis
in the not too distant future.
Your patch might be incomplete, chapter 3.7, appendix A, and
the normative references mention 3978 instead of 3978 + 4748.
Especially appendix A point 7 should now point to RFC 4748.
That's something that I hoped could wait for a complete 4181bis.
//cmh
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf