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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 16 April 2013 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 B4C0B21F969B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, 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 SFdBpBtlfbj6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x233.google.com (mail-we0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3C0321F935D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id p43so308931wea.38 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=TbYJHGa00Ucxoc/9j1AiV+YVFZ0ZSuuRS317Nw2GDAM=; b=APf06zcfJ5wsiEPrnpjJkml9bUTt3WQuZyf8Doeb2gnPsVBD+ArEVebBQw8peeaAsQ EURrXruPpC6+aJihY9p4cJiOJ3o2LIRCv5pMKPV3b/cgJ0YdqLEbRiAy54kEI/TaUaCi r12xlpj3rwd6w872NJtxvP8V5U6jd77bSOOzdnTnRguAcix4bwE5jMop2Y6stl+59ont NziD/l5zgU1DgJ3NyzAGh6fBwjXobssq7yUl0or14nlq8nYjdWwkTaSRmHiunQcBflNn RKiFxOrTsxGiADc4wK3ZiFA9Z0SxplGCXFxJxAdFxB82Fx6MzHTgCEgKdI8s1w+dvhg8 JWkQ==
X-Received: by 10.180.93.134 with SMTP id cu6mr3262229wib.8.1366115715917; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.3.2.18] (a2.norwich.yourspac.nsdsl.net. [94.229.131.97]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ej8sm19172601wib.9.2013.04.16.05.35.13 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <516D4583.7020707@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:35:15 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVB_BN3oYwpWBW6pGHXK_OvbP2588AnpxEU_L+RV5jE9ng@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis.all@tools.ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "Liubing \(Leo\)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
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 12:35:17 -0000

On 16/04/2013 13:27, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> RFC 5887 and 4192 are Informational so cannot be normative
> 
> That's not true any more -- we've allowed downrefs to Informational
> documents for some time now, if the community agrees, through a note in the
> last call announcement, that they are necessary references.  All we'd have
> to do is run a last call that specifically mentions them.

Yes, I am aware of that, and it's a matter of judgement, but
since this draft is not in any sense a protocol specification
or a pseudo-BCP, I am not sure why it needs *any* normative
references, let alone downrefs. There is certainly no
process requirement for them.

   Brian

> Barry
> 
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>>>>> "starts from existing work in [RFC5887],
>>>>> [I-D.chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout] and [RFC4192]." but the
>> references
>>>>> to these documents are informative.  If the document is meant to be an
>> extension,
>>>>> rather than a replacement, such that these documents must be read to
>> get the full
>>>>> picture, than a normative reference may be better.
>>>> Well, we don't have a category for "informative, but really important
>> context", so I leave it to you to pick.  I would personally likely choose
>> normative to highlight their importance.
>>> [Bing2] Ok, if normative could highlight the importance without
>> implication of extension or replacement, then I think it is good. Thanks
>> for the suggestion.
>>
>> RFC 5887 and 4192 are Informational so cannot be normative, and the draft
>> is long-expired so cannot be normative.
>>
>> Regards
>>    Brian
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> apps-discuss@ietf.org <javascript:;>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>
>