Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pete,
At 15:33 20-12-2012, Pete Resnick wrote:
>I haven't seen anyone jump out of the woodwork in support of 
>splitting the document, and the document we've got on the table does 
>it this way. Do you think this is important enough to stop the document?

No, as I cannot justify this if I follow to the DISCUSS criteria.

>I think you've confused the documents. It's 5735, not 5375. So I 
>take it this is not relevant, correct?

I used RFC 5735 as an example.  There is a message from the person 
who submitted the erratum at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg13689.html 
The threads of the discussion are at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg13645.html and 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg13681.html 
It's difficult for the average reader to understand what is the 
current "standard" when document status, "updates" and "obsoletes" 
requires convoluted tracking.

>This document does not change 2860 and it doesn't change 1174. So 
>this policy associated with this text is still in place, whether or 
>not we repeat the above paragraphs. Putting this text in seems 
>unimportant and I haven't seen support to do so. Can you explain how 
>important this objection is? Again, do you see this as a reason not 
>to go forward?

I missed RFC 1174.  I'll drop the objection as your explanation is convincing.

>We do want 5735 to be obsolete because it is no longer the 
>authoritative list of addresses; the registry is. So I think you got 
>that part wrong. But you may have a point about *also* obsoleting 
>5736. I'll leave that one to Ron and Ralph.

Ok.

>I don't understand what you mean here. Are you suggesting that this 
>document updates 2860, or somehow changes something in 2860? It does 
>not AFAICT. Please explain.

No.  Anyway, the probability of such an update being successful is zero. :-)

Regards,
-sm