Subject: [tsvwg] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-17: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 08:25:48 -0800

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-17: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[This point doesn't reach the level of a DISCUSS, but I believe it is important
and that it must be addressed before publication.]

This document should Obsolete rfc8540, which was used to provide "a history of
the changes that will be compiled into a bis document for [RFC4960]."  With the
publication of this document, it will have reached the end of its useful life.

Note that rfc4460 was not declared Obsolete by rfc4960. So this document should
take care of that too.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 17:41:45 +0100

> On 15. Dec 2021, at 17:25, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
Right now the 4960-bis document deals with RFC 8540 like RFC 4960 deals with
RFC 4460. I wouldn't say that RFC 4460 and RFC 8540 have reached the end of its
useful life, since they provide the background for most of the changes.
But I do see your point and I'm happy to make the change if that is the consensus
in the IESG.

Best regards
Michael

---

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 10:38:16 +0000

On 2021-12-15, 17:42, "[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    > Please refer to https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-fe22d327-454445555731-25536b0fc4f2f08a&q=1&e=8d36a38a-3ad2-4795-baa2-75b1d9385403&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fblog%2Fhandling-iesg-ballot-positions%2F
    > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-fe22d327-454445555731-cd2d76b824c7d1f4&q=1&e=8d36a38a-3ad2-4795-baa2-75b1d9385403&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis%2F
    > 
    > 
    > 

Just repeating what I wrote in my ballot - I know RFC 8540's role for 4960-bis and this bis refers (informative) to RFC 8540 for further details. I don't think obsoleting RFC 8540 will change the reference for details relation form 4960-bis. Then the question is -- is there anything in the RFC 8540 that has not been included in this 4960-bis and that need to leave of it's own? If the answer is NO then we might just obsolete RFC 8540.

BR
Zahed

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 14:57:38 +0100

> On 16. Dec 2021, at 11:38, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
All text changes described in RFC 8540 have been incorporated in 4960-bis.
What has not been included is the text motivating each change.
So if you just want to know, how SCTP works, reading 4960-bis is what you want.
If you want to know why something was changed, you might want to consult RFC 8540.
It might give you some background information.

Does that help?

Best regards
Michael

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 11:51:28 +0100

> On 15. Dec 2021, at 17:41, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
This document now obsoletes RFC 4460 and RFC 8540.

Best regards
Michael