IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 16 April 2013 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 414E021F9742; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tGW04HhK5Bcn; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A1CA21F973A; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.138.179]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3GJZRj7011253 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1366140941; bh=fOvrmS88agpU0TjUzxZppqFBXBBAWd9vbk5t+sMcmVA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=C0lrhNw1LOn+i1LJul7hUNp1FISbOw4InOyVgswgiqUPrZIgsEW34wg0K2ZbqNjiB I1Y92j0nUn/h8D+CCX7K37cZ9ov3pJekjiI8mhj3Y4DZ7rpAAvWFl9cYnjsvwxAjTl GStLZEnBPiYc3M4ztdnZjlH7A054ycI1qEsbn8s8=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1366140941; i=@elandsys.com; bh=fOvrmS88agpU0TjUzxZppqFBXBBAWd9vbk5t+sMcmVA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=RZLmDHQ7P6r+/pEHNSzbtWh1oP/e1mT4xG81iLB41cVaaMwieROElX7IuEvGF+EFo XbL/ROBVjoLB1WYtJvdRPkCEbrwo7PK2bF8/W6mRUz2b2Xhffx8dwICr5Z/4VO7XZZ LwfQH5RDGV7K5T/U75yLr2ewEY0xDND1DZIVJIiw=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130416112752.0b46f6e0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:28:38 -0700
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <516D6EF1.90001@gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMDEc1mX77eRYMXPBKnH9X+jOXGVD7pVFArkwSwNsF+wMA@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D6EEAEE@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CA+9kkMA7+_m5s-iEo24H9jrGt9Osn32iMBDSSEyL7FNyeDT5+g@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D6FC22B@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <516CF39D.7020306@gmail.com> <CAC4RtVB_BN3oYwpWBW6pGHXK_OvbP2588AnpxEU_L+RV5jE9ng@mail.gmail.com> <516D4583.7020707@gmail.com> <CA+9kkMA2FDH3DSLED33uS5R0VSxyUok96OEU9=LtODu+nYRv3A@mail.gmail.com> <516D6EF1.90001@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis.all@tools.ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org, "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>, renum@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:36:48 -0000

Hi Brian,
At 08:32 16-04-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Of course, as an author I will follow whatever the WG chairs and AD
>decide is the consensus - it's just that doing a second downref Last Call
>for this document seems a bit OTT.

Agreed.

I agree with the comments posted by Ted Hardie at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg09296.html

RFC 2874 is a normative reference which is only mentioned in Section 
9.2.  The status of that RFC is Historic.

RFC 2894 is a normative reference.  It is referenced in Section 3.1 
(relevant protocols and mechanisms).  It is mentioned that the 
protocol is not widely used.  Should I read that RFC before reading 
draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05?

RFC 3971 is a normative reference in 
draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.  It is only referenced in the 
Security Considerations section.

RFC 3956 is listed both as an informative and a normative reference.

Section 1 mentions that:

   "This document does further analysis and identifies the valuable and
    solvable issues, digs out of some undiscovered gaps, and gives some
    solution suggestions."

Should I read RFC 5887, I-D.chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout and RFC 
4192 before reading draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email