IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: "RFC4941bis" and draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 27 July 2017 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 308ED131D1C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QoVb1xjOJtXa for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D69E131D05 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.17] (unknown [84.47.113.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2957681DA2; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: "RFC4941bis" and draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids
To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <201707210740.v6L7edWt004994@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <59632753-972a-f98c-a968-4a6365386844@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:46:35 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201707210740.v6L7edWt004994@givry.fdupont.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mPR1zb-OXkIEyW3mPfR-WFKp-7s>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:01:56 -0000

On 07/21/2017 10:40 AM, Francis Dupont wrote:
> When following a number it can get a specific meaning: in a postal
> address bis (and ter) means something was inserted between two
> numbers (usually between N and N + 2 as streets have an even side
> and an odd side).
> 
> In the IETF context I agree "bis" means more a revamp and major
> changes come from consolidation with other related documents
> published after.
> 
> So in the RFC4941bis particular case the name is really arguable
> and IMHO if the new mechanism is not backward compatible the bis
> name should not be used.
> 
> Now the I-D name is temporary so it should be more important to
> discuss about its content...

Fully agreed. At the end of the day, if the wg decides to adopt the
document as a wg item, the filename can be renamed along with the rename
to draft-ietf.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email