Subject: [newtrk] comments on "What Standards"

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:59:48 +0200 (EET)

Thanks for the concise draft.  I think it presents some good ideas. 
However, I don't think they are mature quite yet -- there seem to be some
"dragons" John Klensin warned about... :-)

That is:

 1) maintenance is good, but simplifying the documentation and the "IETF
official seal" to a few Yes/No -like questions is likely to be rather
difficult and subjective as well.

It would be simple to maintain a list of the current status of the work,
alongside with the commentary if needed, without any kind of "official"
seal, but I'm not sure whether that would fulfill your requirements.  And
what if such documentation would have trouble being kept in sync (just look
at the charters :).

 2) defining "protocol labels" or such may actually prove to be quite a bit
of a burden, especially if you want to combine more more specifications to
one.  It may not necessarily be clear what a "protocol" means.  For example,
if there was an Ethernet MIB and an Ethernet-2 MIB, would they be treated as
one?  I.e., are you trying to come up with some kind of "loosely related"
categories?

Editorial comments:
-------------------

    This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
    all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1].

==> no numbered references in the header.

    This document proposes a split between the RFC number of a
    specification and the label for a protocol or protocol set. The

==> I don't recall this memo documenting a split of RFC numbers :-). 
Moreover, what is "specification" or "protocol"?  Where do BCP or
Informational documents (for example) fit in here?  I'm not sure if they
necessarily _specify_ anything so using "specification" to refer to them
might not be appropriate.

    Additionally, as the standards with the IETF produces see wider
    deployment by parties outside of the IETF, the system of
    documentation and updating within the IETF may cause some amount of
    confusion.

==> s/with//
==> "documentation and updating" of what?  it's not 100% obvious.

    There may be different expectations of what IETF standards may
    mean.

==> I'd remove the second "may".

    This section looks in greater detail the affects of the problems
    listed in section 1.

==> s/affects/effects/

    Bugs in a specification can be found at any point. There have been
    bugs found in even in Full Standards.

==> s/found in/found/

    In order to populate the label system work, there would need to be
    a web location for this registry.

==> s/to populate/for/ or some other rewording?

   Information References: 

==> s/tion/tional/

 References

==> rename to Normative References or remove altogether (the reference to
2026 appears to be redundant)?

   author wants to thank John Klensen for warning that there may be

==> s/Klensen/Klensin/ :)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html