From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm-i...@htt-consult.com> Sent: 05 April 2023 18:58
The origin draft only was discussing SCHC as an IP Protocol Number. At IETF115, the attendees agreed that the draft needs to be expanded to also SCHC as an Ethertype and as a UDP Port Number. Thus the old draft name no longer reflects the new content. <tp> A very common state of affairs in the IETF. If the name changed for every semantic change then some I-D would go through a large number of names before making it to RFC which would make it hard for anyone to find out what has happened. I recall an AD losing track of what had been proposed because they did not realise that there had been a name change. The I-D title matters, that is there for the long haul. The I-D file name is a temporary identifier that should follow the requirements for an identifier, a key one of which is stability and a key one which is not is for the name to be updated if some part of the semantics change. I am happy to see protocol number as encompassing an Ethertype protocol number, a media type protocol number, an interface protocol number and so on so see no need to change. </rant> Tom Petch p.s. I could tell you about a scientific (in)discipline where a small group feed their egos by changing identifiers every few years thereby rendering the literature, where a name could appear a million times, hard to use for those of us who have been around for a while and ever more difficult to access for students in future (which is how to feed an ego) but I will leave that for another day. There is a mechanism when you submit a draft to link it to a prior draft so the draft history is properly maintained (it does not support linking to multiple prior drafts or splitting an old draft into multiple, for that you have to ask for human help). So the new draft name will reflect the new draft content. I just don't have enough time to get content into the new draft prior to Passover Holiday start. I hope to get it done during the middle days, say Sunday. Stay tuned. Pascal Thubert is helping me with the new content. Particularly the specific content needed to liason with IEEE 802 on the Ethertype. Bob On 4/5/23 11:49, tom petch wrote: > From: Int-area <int-area-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Robert Moskowitz > <rgm-i...@htt-consult.com> > Sent: 05 April 2023 12:22 > > I am in the process of reving draft > > draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number > > and adding support for schc as an ethertype and tcp/udp port number as I > said I would do back in Nov. Sigh. > > So what to name the new draft? > > <tp> > If you are producing a new version of > draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00 then I would call it > draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-01. I do not see any other > logical choice. > > Tom Petch > > > > draft-ietf-intarea-schc-protocol-numbers > > ?? > > Alternatives? > > Thanks and now back to my writing as I really want to get an update out > today before Holidays... > > Bob > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
