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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> it's just that doing a second downref Last Call for this document seems a
bit OTT.

Actually, as this doc is itself Informational, there are no downrefs.  We
can change any reference to normative, with no need for a second last call.
 That would only be needed if this doc were Standards Track or BCP.

Barry

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

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