Subject: [dtn] Obosoleting indicators in drafts

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 10:03:01 +0000

Hi Authors,

With the WG chairs decision regarding the consenus on obsoleting the earlier
documents I want to get some form things correct in the documents.

1. Please use the header line "Obsoletes: RFCXXXX" as tooling uses this.

2. Abstract and Introduction do need to say that they are obsoleting some
documents and list them. It is fine to note that this are IRTF Stream documents
for extra clarity here. 

3. Scott added a sentence about requesting Obsoletion from IRTF. That is also
fine, but please do that in a separate statement that has an RFC-editor note
that the text shall be removed prior to publication. As the request does not
matter when the document has been published, then 1 and 2. fulfills the purpose
to indicate the obsoletion and the fact that it was cross stream one. 

I am also assuming that BPSec will obsolete RFC 6257 and that TCPCL will
obsolete RFC7242. As I don't know these documents in detail, if there are any
significant function that is now defined in your documents that was defined in
another RFC then we need to consider to include that also. Here I primarily
wonder if there are parts of RFC 5050 that was moved into BPSec or TCPCLv4? The
intention here is to ensure that if one look up RFC 5050 in the future one will
get a list of all documents that defines the replacing definition. 

Great that we finally are almost ready to proceed to IESG Evaluation.
 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Networks, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:18:55 +0000

Thanks, Magnus, I will put whatever words are needed wherever they need to go in order to get us finally moving forward, but I would like not to have to cycle through this process too many more times.  My understanding has been that the bpv7 document cannot "obsolete" RFC5050, it can only *request* that IRTF do so; I think that's the sense of https://irtf.org/policies/cross-stream-updates.html and yesterday's message from the WG chairs.  But if the "obsoletes" header will pass the nits check then I will happily try once again.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 2:03 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Obosoleting indicators in drafts

Hi Authors,

 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 15:32:44 +0000

Hi Scott,

On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 13:18 +0000, Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) wrote:
> Thanks, Magnus, I will put whatever words are needed wherever they need to go
> in order to get us finally moving forward, but I would like not to have to
> cycle through this process too many more times.  My understanding has been
> that the bpv7 document cannot "obsolete" RFC5050, it can only *request* that
> IRTF do so; I think that's the sense of https://irtf.org/policies/cross-stream-updates.html and yesterday's message from the WG
> chairs.  But if the "obsoletes" header will pass the nits check then I will
> happily try once again.

I agree we can only request it. But that request should go into a paragraph that
has an RFC-editors note that it will be deleted prior to publication. 

The Obsolete header and the sentence in abstract and introduction are for what
the you and the WG intendes to be published in the end. So in this case you have
to assume that the IRTF will agree. Which we have strong indication that they
will do. 

Does that clarify why I want things in this way. 

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 15:34:37 +0000

Okay, I'll post again this afternoon.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 7:33 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) 
<[email-masked]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Obosoleting indicators in drafts

Hi Scott,

On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 13:18 +0000, Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) wrote:
> IRTF do so; I think that's the sense of 
> https://irtf.org/policies/cross-stream-updates.html and yesterday's message 
> from the WG

I agree we can only request it. But that request should go into a paragraph 
that
has an RFC-editors note that it will be deleted prior to publication.

The Obsolete header and the sentence in abstract and introduction are for what
the you and the WG intendes to be published in the end. So in this case you 
have
to assume that the IRTF will agree. Which we have strong indication that they
will do.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]
> ; [email-masked]
-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund