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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Ted,

On 16/04/2013 16:06, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>
>>
> I certainly agree that there is no process requirement, but there is a
> potentially useful result.  When I see a document like this with 9
> normative references (as it has now), I get the sense that those are the
> ones which are needed context and that the informative ones are useful
> additional information.  That maps to "Essential reading" and "Useful
> additional information", which is pretty much the same mapping as
> "Normative" and "Informative" have in a protocol spec.  It's not *exactly*
> the same, I grant you, but it's an approximation.  My question about the
> three listed as "starts from" might have been better phrased as:  are these
> "Essential Reading" or "Useful additional information"?

IMHO, the RFCs are necessary reading for a complete understanding.
The I-D is far too expired for that, although there has been some
discussion of reviving its contents.

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.

    Brian
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted Hardie
> 
> 
>>    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
>>>> [e-mail] <javascript:;>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>
>