Bob Hinden wrote:
Gentlemen,
This document is being recycled at Draft standard. It has been
previously reviewed, IESG approved, RFC-Editor edited, and published
at Proposed and Draft Standard. It is very widely deployed. Any
issues regarding the meaning of SHOULD, MUST, etc. have been already
dealt with.
I am having a hard time not reading most of the comments in this
review as a "make work" project. There isn't an implementations
problem that is being solved. This is already widely implemented. In
deciding to recycle the Draft the IPv6 w.g. was trying to clarify some
issues that have come up based on the deployment experience todate.
Many of the changes from the previous document were finely crafted in
a lot of working group discussion. I think it is very inappropriate
to change them.
Further, making these changes will likely cause confusion in the
people who have implemented this standard as they might wonder if they
have to change anything. So I think this attempt to clarify the text,
might well have the effect of reducing interoperability.
Overall, I think this kind of review is a wonderful service for new
specifications going to Proposed Standard the first time before there
are implementations, but I think it is very worrisome for documents
that have been through the process several times and are already
widely implemented. In my view, for documents that are at this level
of maturity we should only being making changes that fix critical
problems.
Without having reviewed the document or the review comments, I still
want to weigh in agreeing with Bob here on principle. When dealing with
a specification with a lot of deployment behind it, each change to the
document runs the risk of introducing regression errors in the process.
Unless the document is severely flawed, I think that the move from PS to
DS should focus on "bugfixes" more than redesign.
Just my 0.02 EUR...
- Mark
Bob
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
