Re: grow: draft of new RFC1519 replacement

Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Tue, 12 April 2005 17:47 UTC

Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (root@darkwing.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.13]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19936 for <grow-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:47:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j3CHjS3u006814; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j3CHjSce006812; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netcore.fi (netcore.fi [193.94.160.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j3CHjQQ5006610 for <grow@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j3CHjEw16585; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:45:14 +0300
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:45:14 +0300
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Vince Fuller <vaf@cisco.com>
cc: grow@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: grow: draft of new RFC1519 replacement
In-Reply-To: <20050412165344.GA6652@vaf-lnx1.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504122040050.16404@netcore.fi>
References: <20050411170200.GA11870@vaf-lnx1.cisco.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504120957010.3431@netcore.fi> <20050412165344.GA6652@vaf-lnx1.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-grow@lists.uoregon.edu
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Vince Fuller wrote:
>> Which documents (apart fromt he CIDR ones) does this Update (if any)?
>
> I thought that the "Abstract" covered this:
>
>   This memo discusses the strategy for address assignment of the
>   existing 32-bit IPv4 address space with a view toward conserving the
>   address space and limiting the growth rate of global routing state.
>   This document is intended as a replacement for the original CIDR spec
>   [RFC1519] with changes made both to clarify the concepts it
>   introduced and, after more than twelve years, to update the Internet
>   community on the results of deploying the technology it described.
>
> As I understand the RFC publication process, the RFC editor will add an
> appropriate "Obsoletes:" header to the document when it becomes an RFC; I
> don't think an Internet-Draft is supposed to use that header, at least not
> according to my reading through the "xml2rfc" pre-processor.

I was afraid this was the case; so this means to obsolete only 
RFC1519.

However, there are other relevant RFCs (below). I think the current 
RFC could obsolete all of these, with little or not added text.  It 
certainly doesn't seem to make sense to produce a bis version of all 
of these.

This is most important for Proposed Standards (RFC1517, RFC1518). 
Basically all these documents could be made Historic, replacing them 
with just one spec (e.g., this one).



RFC1817
  CIDR and Classful Routing  Y. Rekhter August 1995 ASCII 
INFORMATIONAL

RFC1520
  Exchanging Routing Information Across Provider Boundaries in the CIDR 
Environment  Y. Rekhter, C. Topolcic September 1993 ASCII 
INFORMATIONAL

RFC1519
  Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and 
Aggregation Strategy  V. Fuller, T. Li, J. Yu, K. Varadhan September 
1993 ASCII Obsoletes RFC1338  PROPOSED STANDARD

RFC1518
  An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR  Y. Rekhter, T. 
Li September 1993 ASCII   PROPOSED STANDARD

RFC1517
  Applicability Statement for the Implementation of Classless 
Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)  Internet Engineering Steering Group, R. 
Hinden September 1993 ASCII Errata  PROPOSED STANDARD

RFC1482
  Aggregation Support in the NSFNET Policy-Based Routing Database  M. 
Knopper, S. Richardson June 1993 ASCII   INFORMATIONAL

RFC1481
  IAB Recommendation for an Intermediate Strategy to Address the Issue 
of Scaling  C. Huitema July 1993 ASCII   INFORMATIONAL

RFC1467
  Status of CIDR Deployment in the Internet  C. Topolcic August 1993 
ASCII Obsoletes RFC1367  INFORMATIONAL

..................



btw, the following clarifies it a bit more.

s/This document is intended as a replacement for the original CIDR 
spec [RFC1519]/This document Obsoletes RFC 1519/

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_________________________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow.html
web archive:        http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/