As document shepherd, I have comments on only one of the points below,
and assume the the Author changes will address the rest.
The items concerns the update to RFC 4774. I interpreted the current
text as "clarifications" of how to interpret the wording of RFC 4774,
without a change to the recommendations of the RFC itself. That is, the
wording is guidance to people using tunnels and following RFC 4774.
It may seem curious that RFC 4774 does not actually provide RFC2119
guidance, but this is the way it is. Adding an RFC 2119 working to this
recommendation seems to me like something we have to take seriously and
evaluate in the WG - but I wonder if we actually need to do this?
In summary: if this adds useful context to RFC 4774, I don't see an
issue with flagging the update with the RFC-Ed. --- If it seems like you
see potential value in going further, I'd like to be in the loop on that
discussion.
Best wishes,
gorry
TSVWG Co-Chair
Bob Briscoe wrote:
Ben,
Thank you for your review comments from the GEN-ART perspective.
I think I have dealt with all your points in my responses, which are
inline...
There is just one outstanding question for you concerning updating
BCP4774...
At 22:23 01/07/2010, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-08
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-07-01
IETF LC End Date: 2010-07-06
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. I
have a couple of procedural questions that should be considered first,
as well as a few editorial comments.
Major Issues: None.
Minor Issues:
-- RFC Editor request (immediately after ToC): "In the RFC index,
RFC3168 should be identified as an update to RFC2003.
RFC4301 should be identified as an update to RFC3168."
This seems odd. I assume the intent is that this draft says that
things from 3168 should be applied to 2003, therefore updating 2003,
etc? If so, wouldn't it be more correct to say that _this_ draft
updates 2003 and 3168?
<snip>
-- 7, first paragraph: "The guidance below extends RFC4774, giving
additional guidance on designing any alternate ECN semantics
that would also require alternate tunnelling semantics."
Should this draft be listed as updating 4774? Also, you've declared
this section non-normative. What does it mean to non-normatively
extend a BCP?
That's a very good question/point and I would appreciate your advice on
how to proceed. My take was that this was an informational section of a
STDS RFC. So I did not include any RFC2119 language. But your nicely
succinct question throws this into better perspective.
Should I:
* Add 'Updates 4774' to the headers?
* Scrub the line saying "This section is informative not normative." ?
* Shift the RFC2119 keywords in this section to upper-case?
<snip>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf