Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC and telechat review of draft-ietf-dna-simple-09.txt

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:49:03 -0400

Hi Brian,
   Thanks for your comment. Please see response inline.

On 09-10-24 10:22 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
 > This is marked as "Updates: 4861". I am not sure that is true.
 > Although this specification makes normative references to 4861, I
 > don't see any way that it changes 4861; it's just an optional extra.

You are right. It does not change 4861 and it is an optional extra. But 
I understood the word "Updates" to mean exactly this. From RFC2223 
Section 12.

       To be used as a reference from a new item that cannot be used
       alone (i.e., one that supplements a previous document), to refer
       to the previous document.  The newer publication is a part that
       will supplement or be added on to the existing document; e.g., an
       addendum, or separate, extra information that is to be added to
       the original document.

I had used "Updates:4861" to indicate that this document has to be used 
along with RFC4861 and cannot be used standalone. I do not feel strongly 
about this and I am willing to change this if required.

Cheers
Suresh

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:16:57 +1300

Hmm. I don't take much notice of 2223 these days.
2223bis was on my plate as Gen AD but never progressed.

However, the same phrase is in
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt

It confuses me, because "The new document cannot be
used alone, it can only be used in conjunction with the
earlier document." sounds like the definition of a normative
reference, not an update.

Over to the ADs to decide...

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:05:34 +0200

Yeah, that's the wrong definition of Updates as far as I can tell.

I would say remove the Updates.

Jari

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:18:12 +1300

Wearing my RFC Editorial Board hat, I have persuaded Bob Braden
to update the instructions to authors.

   Brian