I’m not the sponsoring AD for this document, but my take is: - As Adrian says, “Updates” is un[der]specified, so it’s a mug’s game to say it must/must not be used in a certain way. - That being said, IMHO its usefulness is similar, but not identical, to what Adrian said. My take is that any time there’s a subsequent RFC, which the user of an older RFC should be made aware of while consulting the older RFC, then that’s an “Updates” situation. - That seems to be the case in this instance. - The revised text in the email I’m replying to seems both necessary and sufficient to provide context so that users of RFC 7470, who follow the Updates link to RFC NNNN, won’t have to go on a scavenger hunt to figure out what changed.
And AFAIK, adding “Updates” isn't a mandatory trigger for another IETF LC. $0.02, —John On Nov 20, 2024, at 6:44 AM, Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: Thanks for the clarification, Dhruv. Like I said, I don’t much mind. But, this is not the correct way to fix a debatable citation in another RFC. That should be done with an editorial erratum. This use of “updates” leaves the implementer of 7470 trying to work out whether they have to pick up any technical changes from the new I-D. Or will the Abstract of the next revision include the text… This document updates RFC 7470 by clarifying a reference. …and the Introduction… This document updates RFC 7470 by clarifying the reference for the definition and management of Private Enterprise Numbers. It does not make any technical changes to the procedures or encodings defined in RFC 7470. BTW, if a new “Updates” clause is added, doesn’t the document need to go for IETF last call again (because the first last call failed to call this out)? Cheers, Adrian From: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> Sent: 20 November 2024 11:28 To: adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk> Cc: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssidor=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:ssidor=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>; Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io<mailto:paul.wout...@aiven.io>>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org>; pce-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>; pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Pce] Re: Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT) Hi Adrian, On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 4:36 PM Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> wrote: Hi all, I'm one of the authors of 7470. I don't mind much about the outcome of this discussion, but the definition of "Updates" *still* remains occluded ☹ [1] 7322 no longer provides a definition, and the old definition in 2223 was, I think, confusing. IMHO, "B updates A" means that to achieve an implementation of A, one should also implement B. It does not mean "B builds on A" (else, pretty much any Internet protocol work would be an update to RFC 791. In the case of this draft, a new feature is being added to PCEP. In order to implement this document, you need to implement at least parts of 7470. But anyone implementing 7470 can just go ahead without any changes. Dhruv: But in this case we are proposing to use "updates" because we want to update a sentence in RFC 7470. This is the proposed text change in Samuel's attachment - [RFC7470] stated that: "Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed through an IANA registry [RFC2578]". This document updates [RFC7470] and replaces this text with: "Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed through the "Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs)" registry as described in [RFC9371]." Cheers, Adrian [1] Any IESG wishing to clarify this through a statement would be greatly helping the community and reducing the recurrence of this discussion. Dhruv: I hope RSWG picks up https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuehlewind-rswg-updates-tag/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuehlewind-rswg-updates-tag/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EX74R_dWvOy_JXmvR-7XODiV9YAuwf7b7Yb1Xq4FWvTsNNzPWqemyHLHzfDR0OHYqFRPBN4JgmpVdmY$> Thanks! Dhruv -----Original Message----- From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssidor=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> Sent: 20 November 2024 10:38 To: Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io<mailto:paul.wout...@aiven.io>>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org>; pce-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>; pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> Subject: [Pce] Re: Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT) Hi Paul, There was already discussion whether update of RFC7470 should be done or not - there was not strong opinion against, but also no strong opinion for doing it, but it is finally probably better to do it. Attaching updated version. Please let me know if it is satisfying your comment. Thanks, Samuel -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wouters via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 1:13 AM To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org>; pce-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>; pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>; d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>; d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com> Subject: Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT) Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EX74R_dWvOy_JXmvR-7XODiV9YAuwf7b7Yb1Xq4FWvTsNNzPWqemyHLHzfDR0OHYqFRPBN4J40ruN6M$> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EX74R_dWvOy_JXmvR-7XODiV9YAuwf7b7Yb1Xq4FWvTsNNzPWqemyHLHzfDR0OHYqFRPBN4JbJexfL8$> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [RFC7470] defines the Enterprise Numbers allocated by IANA and managed through an IANA registry [RFC2578]. This document clarifies the Private Enterprise Numbers (PEN) as described in the IANA registry are same thing as Enterprise Numbers referred in this document and [RFC7470] Does this mean this document Updates: 7470 ? Because it currently does not. The use of "clarifies" versus "updates" here seems uhm convenient :)
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
