Re: Comments on draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-02

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Stig,

On 2/10/14 1:24 PM, Stig Venaas wrote:
> Hi Jouni
> 
> On 2/10/2014 1:23 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>> Sorry being a bit late but I had a read of this document.
>>
>> ** Some nits:
>>
>> s/[ADDRARCH]/[RFC4291]
>>
>> ** While I agree this document is needed there is a general procedural
>> issue I have. This I-D patches three other RFCs, which over the time
>> may become an issue. I would rather see each document having their
>> own bis and RFC4291 update being the master on all of these updates. I
>> recon it might be awfully late for this, though.
> 
> I agree. I'm not sure what is the right thing to do here, I've also been
> wondering if what you say would be better. I've been asking this
> question several time, but I haven't really got much feedback.
> 
> I wonder if it might be worth checking with the IESG or others to see
> what the best way is. It would be a big task updating those documents
> though. One way forward could be to publish this document soon, and then
> work on bis versions of those documents that may also include other
> improvements.
> 

I will point out that I suggested doing errata or -bis documents several
times.  I don't those updates would be that involved.  There really is
only a need to clarify the definition of the flgs and possibly
highlighting the relationship between the specs.

Regards,
Brian