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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 16 April 2013 15:32 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 0C6CE21F9756 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.766
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.167, 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 waMZzsVDRhfp for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3513E21F9721 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id hj19so597556wib.14 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:32:02 -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=kdRDtfAeKHOuEVYb0XD5Z0VJ7Uda9Yn7Xp4q8bbF1DU=; b=do/PlZYxx98545OiH/tIsd6qu8xwFCa0pDP2FIwnUjsP9OErt6pvbBL6mX+4CtCjHf 3vAdp0lF7jyM9lz6UgsA0ua8d6OzBKn9QZMPlb3zWngOEwFc6e8SzVyG4G8czRuF2GT5 YnAkXzfm6jFIlT3WI+rHI9IuoecurfzFstRi9eUabrZZPkBZFKn1InRej8o5a541ez4m AlectIStk+ZW/hsnm3+FfDoLByeOzAtJxzbiBTs6bwbxTMNhQ4Cf3D7Moj2WsHGVesaR RRxr57fwBT2a6uli/F16Bu2r8lAQBBzSHXu0gPsmAC26eLsMgIfn+0gtgsvktSyZo8PF rNGA==
X-Received: by 10.194.143.50 with SMTP id sb18mr4824684wjb.44.1366126322319; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.3.2.18] (a2.norwich.yourspac.nsdsl.net. [94.229.131.97]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fp2sm20100506wib.7.2013.04.16.08.31.59 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <516D6EF1.90001@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:32:01 +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: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@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>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMA2FDH3DSLED33uS5R0VSxyUok96OEU9=LtODu+nYRv3A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "Liubing \(Leo\)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis.all@tools.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 15:32:04 -0000

Ted,

On 16/04/2013 16:06, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> 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
>>>> apps-discuss@ietf.org <javascript:;>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> apps-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>
>