Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

> So, which of update or replace do you prefer ?

Hmm. If we want to go quickly, an update that makes it easy for
the implementer to find the changes is better.

Regards
   Brian

On 2011-11-13 21:19, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> thank you for your comments.
> 
> On 2011/11/09, at 10:11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think I'm going to make myself unpopular.
>>
>> Reading this document as a proposed standard, I think it will confuse the reader.
>> I think that what we actually need is a 100% replacement of RFC 3484, that
>> can be read on its own.
>>
>> (We've been here before - the same argument is why we ended up doing 3697bis.)
>>
>> If that is not done, I would suggest reorganising the text so that (after
>> a short Introduction) the reader finds:
>>
>> - firstly, a complete but concise statement of the normative changes made to 3484
>>  (such as section 2.1.5, and the new rules 5.1 and 9)
>>
>> - secondly, the explanations (such as sections 2.1.1-2.1.4).
>>
>> An implementer would only need to read the first part.
> 
> This document had started as an update, because there was not so many
> things to update at first.
> 
> As the document gets older, it got a bit bigger than I had expected.
> 
> So, which of update or replace do you prefer ?
> 
>> Trivia:
>>
>> Needs a header: Updates: 3484 (if approved)
>>
>>> 4.  IANA Considerations
>>>
>>>   Address type number for the policy table may have to be assigned by
>>>   IANA.
>> You can't say "may", you have to tell IANA exactly what to do in which registry.
> 
> Thanks !