IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Tue, 01 May 2018 09:44 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C58126BF7; Tue, 1 May 2018 02:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17ttmfH3oaDC; Tue, 1 May 2018 02:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53A58120047; Tue, 1 May 2018 02:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h.hanazo.no (unknown [173.38.220.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 53C4F2D51BB; Tue, 1 May 2018 09:44:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B057202EE74D6; Tue, 1 May 2018 11:44:40 +0200 (CEST)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Message-Id: <B610CC6C-90C4-479A-9851-EFB41B673EC8@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C9CF8FE3-37C6-43D2-982A-8B7311927BED"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 11:44:39 +0200
In-Reply-To: <a7245724-d6a3-21d3-a840-3def6166f214@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana.all@ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <151966446045.31474.2565002909272861036@ietfa.amsl.com> <1504EF54-5E22-41E5-B9D2-706940E4A197@employees.org> <a7245724-d6a3-21d3-a840-3def6166f214@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/OZTY534TWwLRISNlqmBvuQT9t-4>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 09:44:54 -0000

Brian,

>>> 4. Section 4 - It would be good to capitalize Standards Action, and refer to
>>> RFC 8126 as reference (also to be added)
>> 
>> Capitalisation done.
>> I ended up leaning towards not referencing 8126. As most documents with IANA considerations don't. To be consistent.
> 
> Really? As an author, I think I've always cited RFC8126 or its predecessors when
> defining an assignment policy. "Standards Action" may be self-defining, but
> certainly the more subtle policies like "Specification Required" need a reference.

Good point. For the assignment policy I agree. (I was for some reason thinking IANA Considerations in general).
I will update.

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email