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

S Moonesamy <> Tue, 16 April 2013 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 414E021F9742; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tGW04HhK5Bcn; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A1CA21F973A; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (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;; 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;; s=mail; t=1366140941;; 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: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:28:38 -0700
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc:,, "Liubing (Leo)" <>,
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.


I agree with the comments posted by Ted Hardie at

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 

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?

S. Moonesamy