Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:40:47 +0100

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-26.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2016/08/12
IETF LC End Date: 2016/08/04
IESG Telechat date: 2016/08/18

Summary: (2nd Last Call and Telechat) Almost ready. The points from my 
review of -24 in the first Last Call have all been addressed - thanks - 
with the exception of the location of the key definitions of "session 
id" and "communication session".  The latest version (-26) refers the 
reader to RFC 7206 which needs to be a normative reference but is an 
Informational RFC, creating a downref.    I cannot see that a 
requirements document meets the criteria for an allowable downref as 
described in Section 2 of RFC 3967. Reproducing the two definitions in 
the new draft (and ensuring that they are accurate for the standards 
document) seems to be a better solution IMO.

Major issues:
None

Minor issues:
Downref to RFC 7206 - see above.

Editorial/Nits:
Missing definitions of "session id" and "communication session" - see above.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:58:22 -0500

On 12 Aug 2016, at 10:40, Elwyn Davies wrote:

> review of -24 in the first Last Call have all been addressed - thanks 
> - with the exception of the location of the key definitions of 
> "session id" and "communication session".  The latest version (-26) 
> refers the reader to RFC 7206 which needs to be a normative reference 
> but is an Informational RFC, creating a downref.    I cannot see that 
> a requirements document meets the criteria for an allowable downref as 

Hi Elwyn,

Thanks for all of your reviews on this so far. I agree with the original 
issue, but I disagree with what I understand to be your preferred 
solution.

I agree the definitions are needed to understand this draft. And if 
these were simple definitions, I would agree that this draft should 
simply copy them. But they are not, they are nuanced definitions with 
quite a bit of discussion text. Copying them into this draft would 
require the wholesale copying of 2 sections from RFC 7206, which contain 
about 20 paragraphs and one diagram. That's roughly 20% of the body of 
7206 (not counting front material or references.)

I disagree that this is not an allowable downref. The list in section 2 
of RFC 3967 is a list of examples, not an exhaustive list. We have lots 
of examples of approved RFCs with downrefs to informational RFCs because 
the referenced RFC defined terminology needed to understand the 
dependent document.

Thanks!

Ben.