RE: RFC 4181 indeed updates RFC 2578..2580 (fwd)

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Nobody has yet answered. DO we not have opinions?

In any event, I will state my own opinions.

First, from the introduction of 4181:

   Please note that the guidelines in this memo are not intended to
   alter requirements or prohibitions (in the sense of "MUST", "MUST
   NOT", "SHALL", or "SHALL NOT" as defined in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]) of
   existing BCPs or Internet Standards except where those requirements
>  or prohibitions are ambiguous or contradictory.  In the exceptional
>  cases where ambiguities or contradictions exist, this memo documents
>  the current generally accepted interpretation.  In certain instances,
>  the guidelines in this memo do alter recommendations (in the sense of
>  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", or "NOT RECOMMENDED" as
>  defined in RFC 2119) of existing BCPs or Internet Standards.  This
   has been done where practical experience has shown that the published
   recommendations are suboptimal.  In addition, this memo provides
   guidelines for the selection of certain SMIv2 options (in the sense
   of "MAY" or "OPTIONAL" as defined in RFC 2119) in cases where there
   is a consensus on a preferred approach.

So the lines prefixed with ">" do indicate that this doc does indeed
document "currently generally accepted interpretation" which is not
a change/update to existing STD docs. Those lines also say that
the guidelines in this doc also "do alter recommendations of existing
BCPs or Internet Standards. So it might have been smart to at least say
which "BCPs or Inernet Standards" are being altered.

If we want to do anything we should create the exact and complete list
of what we are altering. Note that if something that is OK in STD58 
and is still OK/ACCEPTABLE (although maybe not recommended or prefered
by RFC4181), then we (MIB doctors) can strongly advise a WG to follow
the recommendations of 4181, but I doubt we can block a document for
that. So I am somewhat hesitant to tag 4181 with a "Updates STD58"
because it makes the "guidelines" a "hard rules" as opposed to 
guidelines. I think we intended the last (namely guidelines). I do
see that at a few places we may be saying that we are in fact 
changing a rule.

More in line

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 05:40
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Cc: Alfred HInes
> Subject: RFC 4181 indeed updates RFC 2578..2580 (fwd)
> 
> 
> MIB Doctors,
> 
> I wanted to ask your opinions on the following comments.  They
> seem reasonable to me.  If they seem reasonable to you, I'll
> send a note to the RFC Editor agreeing that they are appropriate
> for inclusion in an erratum.  (The RFC itself will, under RFC
> Editor rules, be required remain unmodified.)
> 

Problem is that I am not sure we can do so without an IETF Last Call.
I mean tagging the documents as "Updates RFCxxxx" and 
"Updated by RFCyyyy". 

The typos of course can easily be fixed by sending an Erratum to
RFC-Editor (copy author and me (in my AD role) so we can approve.

Bert

> Thanks to the Alfred HÎnes for pointing this stuff out.
> 
> Mike
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 20:04:05 +0200 (MESZ)
> From: "Alfred [hp-roman8] HÎnes" <ah@tr-sys.de>
> To: heard@pobox.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: RFC 4181 indeed updates RFC 2578..2580
> 
> Hello,
> 
> the recently published RFC 4181 == BCP 111 repeatedly points out
> (throughout its whole section 4.) that various remarks of that
> memo clarify, update/amend, or even correct certain parts of
> STD 58, RFC 2578..2580 -- in accordance with current practice
> and IETF consensus.
> 
> Unfortunately, this important relationship is not documented in
> the heading of RFC 4181, and hence currently does not shine up
> in the RFC index.
> Notwithstanding this omission, I strongly propose adding appropriate
> tags to the RFC index to reflect and more visibly document that.
> Hence, using the notation of "rfc-index.txt" (not the XML source),
> o  add the tag
>        '(Updated by RFC4181)'
>    to the entries for RFC 2578, RFC 2579, and RFC 2580, and
> o  add the corresponding tag
>        '(Updates RFC2578, RFC2579, RFC2580)'
>    to the entry for RF 4181.
> 
> 
> Additionally, a small note to the Author / Ed. of the RFC:
> 
> I've also observed two minor typos in the text of RFC 4181
> that migth be worth noting for consideration in the case of
> any future update to this RFC:
> 
> *  The bottom text line of page 29 says:
> 
>       " ... .  Two point are worth reiterating:"
>                        ^^
>    It should say:
> 
>       " ... .  Two points are worth reiterating:"
> 
> *  The first line of item 8 in Appendix A, on page 34, says:
> 
>       "... -- if the draft does not contains a verbatim copy ..."
>                                            ^
>    It should say:
> 
>       "... -- if the draft does not contain a verbatim copy ..."
>   
> 
> Best regards,
>   Alfred HÎnes.
> 
> -- 
> 
> +------------------------+------------------------------------
> --------+
> | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., 
> Dipl.-Phys.  |
> | Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 
>         |
> | D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah@TR-Sys.de             
>         |
> +------------------------+------------------------------------
> --------+
> 
>