[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: RFC 4181 indeed updates RFC 2578..2580 (fwd)
My opinion is close to Bert's I believe.
When I say and hear that RFCYYYY updates RFCXXXX my interpretation is that I can just use RFCYYYY as this is the latest and greatest version of the specification that I need. This does not seem the case with 4181 vs. 2578..2580.
If we believe that 4181 does anything more than providing guidelines and clarifications, and corrects or replaces something that 2578..2580 says, we should use an Errata right away, and update the later as soon as we can. I wonder if this is the case.
Regards,
Dan
.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 1:54 AM
> To: C. M. Heard; Mreview (E-mail)
> Cc: Alfred HInes
> Subject: RE: RFC 4181 indeed updates RFC 2578..2580 (fwd)
>
> 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
> > |
> > +------------------------+------------------------------------
> > --------+
> >
> >
>
>