Hi Alessandro,
On Wed 25/Apr/2012 10:18:50 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
The diff: http://www.blackops.org/~msk/marf-as.html
Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449],
which is effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of
the IETF and thus never achieved IETF consensus. Much of the
content for that document was input to this one.
That's a useful clarification, but possibly not as accurate as it
could. If I knew IETF standardization enough, I'd propose text to say
what we mean to do, something along the lines of (AIUI):
Further advice on this topic can be found in [RFC6449], which is
effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of the
IETF. Rather than modify that document and then turn it into an
IETF Standard, the IETF republished it as an Informational document
and then publishes this document, which confers IETF Standard
status to selected parts of the former one, while updating it as
appropriate.
I prefer your proposal very much, as it addresses my questions (asked
part of my review):
Can you please also a few sentences on how the documents match and
differ.
You know, I see rfc6449, published a few months back, and I see this
document draft-ietf-marf-as-14, which will be published approx. 6
months
And I'm wondering, as someone not involved in this WG...
- Why do we have two almost similar documents?
- Why RFC 6449 could not be a MARF document?
- Which one(s) should I read?
- Are they conflicting? If yes, I guess that draft-ietf-marf-as-14
take precedence. If no, is draft-ietf-marf-as-14 is superset of RFC
6449, and RFC 6449 should not be read any longer.
- etc...
Regards, Benoit.
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
