IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 16 April 2013 06:45 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 BA05821F9630 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, 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 zMDW-ABi3cbe for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com (mail-we0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0980421F962E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id t57so96297wey.4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:45:56 -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=w8v3DAWVyC6quHQRUoisDjODcbZK1oIxmf5Rw5VnnQU=; b=u/OZYD+ka8TfUt75sYayycDeUQKZJ6Cosvj+MP5iH/4nGfpQb7+ITWm+jyGbD/vUcq phUbh3QqfJ7Z88Rw6Er3hPFSFHqMVUdgRa4uBy1oaJmbN/Fqusrpl18e+GEHZtc4s5f2 GLb8a1hYFdQp4BspCZInJ9bKPOt5xzzrn3NMdT5cGYGdXGoiSj1IxWCNszVd6ytXpCPh L2DQvlPEWa0Nl/+VcbWhUYg3N5vNqcsFUNYOrFVTqbvq5sbD5Grlx7WURp7KSCU2X6PA 38tLFFD0UL1ihKe82/sckxEDRXGuX3mi3ZfjXbUTelRYAs6Djil4XzxXqaCOMzWcX2k9 sG7w==
X-Received: by 10.194.176.165 with SMTP id cj5mr1248700wjc.37.1366094756745; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.3.2.18] (a2.norwich.yourspac.nsdsl.net. [94.229.131.97]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fp2sm17443975wib.7.2013.04.15.23.45.54 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <516CF39D.7020306@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:45:49 +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: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.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>
In-Reply-To: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D6FC22B@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.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>
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 06:45:58 -0000

>>> "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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email