On 12 Aug 2016, at 10:40, Elwyn Davies wrote:
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-26.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2016/08/12
IETF LC End Date: 2016/08/04
IESG Telechat date: 2016/08/18
Summary: (2nd Last Call and Telechat) Almost ready. The points from my
review of -24 in the first Last Call have all been addressed - thanks
- with the exception of the location of the key definitions of
"session id" and "communication session". The latest version (-26)
refers the reader to RFC 7206 which needs to be a normative reference
but is an Informational RFC, creating a downref. I cannot see that
a requirements document meets the criteria for an allowable downref as
described in Section 2 of RFC 3967. Reproducing the two definitions in
the new draft (and ensuring that they are accurate for the standards
document) seems to be a better solution IMO.
Hi Elwyn,
Thanks for all of your reviews on this so far. I agree with the original
issue, but I disagree with what I understand to be your preferred
solution.
I agree the definitions are needed to understand this draft. And if
these were simple definitions, I would agree that this draft should
simply copy them. But they are not, they are nuanced definitions with
quite a bit of discussion text. Copying them into this draft would
require the wholesale copying of 2 sections from RFC 7206, which contain
about 20 paragraphs and one diagram. That's roughly 20% of the body of
7206 (not counting front material or references.)
I disagree that this is not an allowable downref. The list in section 2
of RFC 3967 is a list of examples, not an exhaustive list. We have lots
of examples of approved RFCs with downrefs to informational RFCs because
the referenced RFC defined terminology needed to understand the
dependent document.
Thanks!
Ben.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
Downref to RFC 7206 - see above.
Editorial/Nits:
Missing definitions of "session id" and "communication session" - see
above.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
