RE: New name for IG draft

Hi,

there is no need to change the file name to change the title of the draft.

Lars
-- 
NEW EMAIL: [email protected]
NEW MOBILE: +358 50 48 24461
NEW JABBER: [email protected]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Mallikarjun C.
> Received: Thu Dec 28 06:53:20 EET 2006
> To: IPS
> Subject: [Ips] New name for IG draft
> 
> Lars and all,
> 
> I agree with Lars' review comment below, and would like to change the name of the current (iSCSI Implementer's Guide) to "iSCSI Corrections and Clarifications".  Please comment.
> 
> There were some issues with I-D publication process the last time I wanted to change the name of a file name for a post-00 revision.  I had to revert back to the original name (whatever I had for -00 revision).  I do not know if the trick is to change the title of the draft as Lars proposes but leave the file name (draft-ietf-ips....) unchanged.  David and/or Lars, please advise.
> 
> I had also updated the draft to cite RFC 3721 normatively, as Lars suggested below.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Mallikarjun
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Lars Eggert <[email protected]>
> To: Mallikarjun C. <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:14:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ips] ips WG Last Call: iSCSI Implementer's Guide
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Dec 11, 2006, at 18:34, Mallikarjun C. wrote:
> > As far as volunteers for reviewing, we could request the  
> > contributors at the end of the document to review.  David may have  
> > already reviewed, based on his comments.  Julian Satran had some  
> > offline feedback for me on TMF topics.  As the editor of the  
> > document, I was sure that each of the topics were discussed in  
> > detail (or at least clearly noted) on the list before I included  
> > them in the doc.  Hope that gives you some reassurance.
> 
> it does, and I trust the WG to organize sufficient reviews.
> 
> >> whether it is merely the original text that can be
> >> misunderstood or if there is a technical error in the original text.
> >> (It already does in some cases.)
> >
> > Yes, I'd appreciate if you could point out where you think  
> > additional clarifications could help.
> 
> I think I'd mostly like to see stronger language on "this section  
> contains only a clarification of section X of RFC Y" vs. "this  
> section replaces section X of RFC Y."
> 
> >> OK, so this document not only updates 3720, but also 3721, 3722 and
> >> 3723? That needs to be stated in the document header and abstract.
> >> (Also, 3721 needs to be normatively cited in this case.)
> >
> > We could.  My intent was to make it clear that this document  
> > prevails whenever a subtle interpretation in future of one of these  
> > RFCs differs from what's in this document.  Now that we are nearing  
> > the end of the work on this document, we could delete some although  
> > I personally am tempted to leave it this way....from what I can  
> > think of today though, this doc updates 3720 and 3721, but does not  
> > update 3722 and 3723.
> 
> I'd argue for being very clear about which sections of which RFCs  
> this document clarifies/replaces and which are only cited for  
> information. (Where things are being clarified or replaced, those  
> RFCs need to be cited normatively.)
> 
> > 3721 is not a standards-track RFC and I wasn't sure if it needs to  
> > be normatively cited as such.   But I could if that's the right  
> > thing to do.
> 
> It is, see above. Any RFC (independent of its type) that is being  
> clarified or replaced needs to be a normative reference. Please check  
> if this introduces and downrefs according to RFC3967 that we need to  
> handle.
> 
> >> Suggest to find a better title, because implementer's guides don't
> >> typically update the base specification in a normative way. (Maybe
> >> "iSCSI Corrections and Implementer's Guide" or something like that?)
> >
> > FIne by me.  How about "iSCSI Corrections, Clarifications,  
> > Additions and Implementation Guidance", or is it too long?  If it  
> > is, we could try "iSCSI Changes Based on Implementers' Experience"  
> > or something like it.
> 
> The first is a bit too long, and I don't like the second :-)
> 
> "iSCSI Corrections and Clarifications?"
> 
> Lars
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ips mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
> 
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips