Hi, Donald,
Thanks so much for your feedback! Please find my comments in-line....
On 01/17/2013 10:09 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
A number of ICMPv4 message types have become obsolete in practice,
but have never been formally deprecated. This document deprecates
such ICMPv4 message types, thus cleaning up the corresponding IANA
registry. Additionally, it updates RFC792 and RFC950, obsoletes
RFC1788, and requests the RFC Editor to change the status of RFC1788
to "Historic".
I'm OK with deprecating these ICMPv4 message types. But this could be
said to "clean up" the IANA registry only, in my opinion, if the
entries were removed, which would be a bad idea.
FWIW, what we meant by "cleaning up" is that once the registry is
annotated as appropriate, the registry becomes useful for e.g. knowing
which icmp messages are still relevant.
But the draft does
not remove these entries or simplify the registry, it annotates the
entries. I consider the wording "clean up", as used here, to be
misleading.
I suggest the second sentence of the abstract be changed to "This
document deprecates such ICMPv4 message types and annotates the
corresponding IANA registry entries." and that corresponding changes
be made elsewhere in the draft where "clean up" is used.
I have no problem with applying this change. So unless anyone argues on
the contrary, I'll rev the document accordingly.
Thanks!
Best regards,
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando(_at_)gont(_dot_)com(_dot_)ar ||
fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1