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

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

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.

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.

   Brian