Re-sent due to wrong e-mail address. > >Hi, > >I have also looked at this document, and there are things that I have >think are unclear: > >Q1: It is Informational, and it does not update RFC 4960. Instead, it just >seems to list the erratas (but without even referencing them, as noted by >Paul). I think that it should be made very clear that this document is >only for guidance, and that implementers shall use the actual erratas for >the actual updates. > >Q2: Unless I’ve missed it, there is no indication whether the draft only >includes the Verified erratas, or also others - in which case the modified >text in one or more erratas may still be changed (erratas may even be >rejected). > >Q3: While the draft name contains “-errata-“, it is unclear whether the >draft only covers issues for which erratas has been filed, or whether >other issues (e.g., issues that have been discussed on the list) are also >included. > >Q4: When looking at the changes, at least in one case I can’t find an >associated errata. For example, section 3.34 is associated with Section >10.1. I only find one errata (#5003) associated with Section 10.1, but the >changes in that errata does not match what is in the draft. A reference to >the actual errata would help. > >Q5: The text says that the draft includes issues found since publication. >Now, there may be more issues after this draft has been published, so it >should say something like “at the time of publishing this document”. > >Regards, > >Christer > > > > > >On 03/06/18 21:59, "Gen-art on behalf of Paul Kyzivat" ><gen-art-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > >>[[INCOMPLETE, NOT READY TO SEND. PLEASE IGNORE]] >> >>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 treat these comments just like any other >>last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at >><http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >>Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06 >>Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat >>Review Date: 2018-06-03 >>IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-04 >>IESG Telechat date: ? >> >>Summary: >> >>This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the >>review. >> >>Issues: >> >>Major: 1 >>Minor: 2 >>Nits: 1 >> >>1) MAJOR: >> >>The format of this document disturbs me. According to the abstract: >> >> ... This >> document provides deltas to RFC4960 and is organized in a time >> ordered way. The issues are listed in the order they were brought >> up. Because some text is changed several times the last delta in the >> text is the one which should be applied. >> >>This format makes the document hard to deal with. A developer who wants >>to implement sctp with some or all of the errata fixes will want to work >>from a variant of 4960 that incorporates all of those fixes - a bis. But >>it isn't clear how this document helps with that. I don't think you can >>start with 4960 and simply apply all the deltas sequentially, because >>overlapping changes won't work right. >> >>A developer won't be interested in the order in which errata were >>reported. An actual bis document would be more useful to a developer >>than this format. Is that not being done because doing so would be more >>difficult? Or because it isn't yet certain that these are the correct >>fixes? >> >>I think you should give some serious consideration of the most suitable >>form for this document, in the context of how it is intended to be used. >> >>2) MINOR (maybe MAJOR): >> >>Discovering where one change is impacted by another change is hard. >> >>I dug into the details of the document to understand how many places >>there are actually overlaps between the changes in multiple sections. >>(It took a lot of work to do this.) I found five of these: >> >>- 3.1 / 3.23 >>- 3.3 / 3.43 >>- 3.5 / 3.10 >>- 3.6 / 3.23 >>- 3.24 / 3.32 >> >>(I don't guarantee that this list is exhaustive.) >> >>Of these, I think only one (3.1/3.23) explicitly indicates the conflict, >>and it only indicates it within 3.23. >> >>Most of the changes don't have any conflicts. And some of the conflicts >>could be removed by being more precise in indicating the change being >>made. In cases where this isn't possible, the presence of the conflict >>should be indicated in each section that has a conflict, with cross >>references. IOW, shift the burden of detecting conflicts from the reader >>to the document. >> >>3) MINOR: >> >>Errata Tracking: Apparently each subsection of section 3 covers one >>erratum. But the errata numbers are not mentioned. Each section ought to >>reference the errata number it responds to. >> >>4) NIT: >> >>In section 3.35 (DSCP Changes) the change to section 10.1 isn't properly >>indicated. It shows 'Old text' twice rather than 'Old text' and 'New >>text'. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Gen-art mailing list >>Gen-art@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > >_______________________________________________ >Gen-art mailing list >Gen-art@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
