Hi Ron, This is useful and concise information for ICMP. Any implementation recommendation for Router or Node?
Regards, Prasenjit From: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Friday, 21 June 2024 at 8:13 PM To: Carlos Pignataro <cpign...@gmail.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com> Cc: int-area@ietf.org <int-area@ietf.org> Subject: [Int-area] Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-icmp-op-exp-00.txt Folks, Agree. BCP is better. Ron Juniper Business Use Only ________________________________ From: Carlos Pignataro <cpign...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 10:06 AM To: Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com> Cc: tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com>; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; int-area@ietf.org <int-area@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-icmp-op-exp-00.txt [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Bob, Tom, > On Jun 21, 2024, at 01:06, Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Tom, > >> On Jun 20, 2024, at 3:49 AM, tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: >> >> From: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> >> Sent: 20 June 2024 01:25 >> >> Folks, >> >> Please take a look at this draft. There is nothing new or shocking in it. It >> is mostly an annotated bibliography regarding ICMP. >> >> I prepared this document so that it can be referenced by other documents. A >> document that mentions ICMP can reference this document in order to avoid >> repeating ICMP details in its pages. >> >> If nobody has any comments regarding this document, I will ask for a call >> for adoption in a month or so. >> >> <tp> >> >> I note that the status is Informational which limits the scope of use >> unless and until it is added to the well-known list of Informational >> documents that might have been better off as Standards Track for ease of >> Reference! >> > > I agree that Informational isn’t quite right for it’s intended purpose: > > "A document that mentions ICMP can reference this document in order to > avoid repeating ICMP details in its pages” > > But it’s not Standard's track either as it doesn’t define a protocol. The > doc says: > > “...this document does not introduce any new protocols or operational > procedures" > > I think it’s closer to a BCP, but not an exact fit either. > I agree with this assessment. Certainly no Standards Track, BCP-but-not-fully-quite. > I appreciate the work the authors put into this to summarize all of the > related ICMP RFCs, that is useful. However, I am not yet convinced that > this can achieve its goal listed above. If published, it’s also going to > need to be updated every time a new ICMP related RFC is published. At the same time, I can see this document being useful published as Informational. I do not see a default need to update it with every ICMP-related RFC, but maybe batching meaningful or significant changes. I wonder if there’s a loose parallel with the tcp roadmap Informational RFC, which is even cited from the tcp spec. Thanks! Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. Excuze typofraphicak errows > > Bob > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list -- int-area@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to int-area-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- int-area@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to int-area-le...@ietf.org