Subject: [Tsvwg] Last Call: 'Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Specification Errata and Issues' to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:36:23 -0500

The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG to 
consider the following document:

- 'Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Specification Errata and Issues '
   <draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-16.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2005-12-05.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-16.txt

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:50:06 -0700

>    <draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-16.txt> as a Proposed Standard

Proposed Standard?

Whatever happened to INFORMATIONAL?

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[email-masked]    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:56:29 -0600

Brian

It was decided in our Vancouver meeting that this be a PS. Do you (or 
anyone) have a logical argument why this should not be the case moving forward?

> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-16.txt

cheers,
James

                                 *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:40:32 -0700

James,

Because it was last called within the WG as INFORMATIONAL.

There are issues with the document that were moot for an INFORMATIONAL
RFC, but which are paramount for a PS.

They were moot for an INFORMATIONAL RFC because such a document binds
no implementation.  Which is, of course, not the case for a PS.

As it is to be a PS, can we have another WGLC to address techical
issues pertinent to the document becoming a PS?

Otherwise, I suppose there is always the appeals process...

--brian

---

From: Randall Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:37:58 -0500

James:

My understanding of what was to happen is as follows:

a) The I-G would be last called as Informational...
b) The I-G would be used to create the 2960BIS.. but as
    Allison posted previously.. the I-G will be used
    to scope the 2960BIS.. i.e. it is strictly an
    editting process.

Now, besides all of that.. it would make no sense
to have it be a PS since it is a series of edits that
need to be applied to 2960.... It does make sense
as a informational document so that folks in the
future can look back and see that we changed 2960
to its "new RFC" and the I-G provides what and why
things were changed..

Here is the quote from Allisons earlier LC directive:
*****************************************************************
Folks,

The procedure Michael summarizes was presented to the WG and given a hum,
in fact, but then some SCTP interoperability meetings intervened in which
finishing touches were given to the actual deltas contained in the document.

One point that I intended to ask the editors (or perhaps may
have suggested with too soft a voice, in the past), is for the
document to describe its own procedure clearly.  So, instead of saying:

    This document updates RFC2960 [6] and text within this document
    supersedes the text found in RFC2960 [6].

It needs to say:

    This document is a compilation of all the deltas and errata...
    Its name is a convention...
    etc...

In its current form, and as an Informational, it won't be able to
supersede and update RFC 2960.  That will only be done by 2960bis.
If we want the current sentence to be true, we need to use the other
procedure, making this document a PS, and then obsoleting it
(really, obviating it) with 2960bis.

In either case, to underline something in Michael's summary, 2960bis
is to be derived from this document by editing alone.  So do consider
this in your reviewing.

Allison

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
****************************************************************************

Note that the changes Allison suggested were made .. it does
not say in the I-G that it supersedes anything...

So.. in summary:

A) The I-G is for Informational..

and

B) "2960bis is to be derived from this document by editing alone"
    (from the I-G)...

R

-- 
Randall Stewart
803-345-0369 <or> 815-342-5222(cell)