IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> Fri, 16 December 2011 09:38 UTC

Return-Path: <rogerj@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA1621F8AE9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:38:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.224
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.224 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IzM-7nuSI31j for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:38:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A4521F8A96 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:38:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eaad1 with SMTP id d1so3079870eaa.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:38:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Jupg5eHx+sOEu3puxDuodZQ38Zq9Zf4Li3kBr1EuXuo=; b=Jzco0nNqbWg9F0J3pygzZ5cQLl6IJmu55rS0aJL3f6Bte5ZmP5B7eal37sd6748DIY JN1o5SpFhttRLhd08duTbmOaBCk6e2XEXwExhUqV5CGwIzy0yXszJWTroFzkS7ZRAf0L 73Fezd9mMMN5o7GInSzdnE65xAvzerOBy1ZHQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.145.74 with SMTP id c10mr2751337bkv.62.1324028287096; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:38:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.70.17 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:38:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4EEA7AF8.2090508@gmail.com>
References: <4EB3F3D6.4090302@innovationslab.net> <CAC1-dtnas++ahkBmpdyq7DbyAEg0W6bZY16qGzKmsP10vC39FQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EEA3D20.7020603@innovationslab.net> <CAKFn1SFvs0PzBXtEWWo814Oe5TJmbQEJBm5FeYJY5xzrr=KFSw@mail.gmail.com> <4EEA5793.8080800@gmail.com> <CAKFn1SHA-=cQ_=5rJVLVMvQYXoTL_D1dCR=uWZK-qFrcGp6P-w@mail.gmail.com> <4EEA7AF8.2090508@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:38:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKFn1SFp_r7EJ6CpM8EF2zkcJz1z34CdEcRt2i5xcsrWkCBQwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt
From: Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:38:10 -0000

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roger,
>
> On 2011-12-16 10:52, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter
>> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Well, the end of my conversation is at
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14948.html
>>>
>>> Summary: "an update that makes it easy for the implementer to find the changes is better."
>>>
>>> If it wasn't clear, I believe this document is technically done and needs
>>> to be advanced, but it does need editorial work as indicated above.
>>
>> Hmm sorry for being unclear, the technical part looked okay as far as
>> I could tell, but as the quoted words from you, it will probably be
>> more confusing to have two documents where the last one update/change
>> the first one. Would be much better to have just one
>> replacing/updating the old one.
>
> That was my first thought, but then I realised it would cause a lot
> of delay, and I think getting these changes deployed is quite urgent.

what about doing it in two step? First getting this one out since it fix
something quite broken, and then update the old RFC?



-- 

Roger Jorgensen           |
rogerj@gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger@jorgensen.no

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email