Re: [mpls] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

[Adding the MPLS WG]

That's a pretty fine question, Barry.

I'd say that, despite the care and work of the working group, it is possible that another gap will be identified. However, I think that might be a lowish possibility and that any new gaps might form a small percentage of the total gaps analysed.

So, my judgement is that this is a bridge to cross when we get there, but others might comment.

And, yes, we can take a pass on the references.

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: 23 November 2014 06:49
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-03: (with DISCUSS
> and COMMENT)
> 
> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-03: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This is a DISCUSS in the truest sense: I'd like to discuss a question
> with the shepherd and/or AD, and I fully expect to resolve the question
> satisfactorily from that.
> 
> The first thing I wondered was why this shouldn't be something maintained
> in a place other than an RFC, and I found that covered well in the
> shepherd writeup. Thanks for that!
> 
> What I continue to wonder is whether, in having that discussion, the
> working group considered what the likelihood is of discovering more gaps
> as they (and other working groups) work on dealing with these.  If so, I
> wonder what the working group's plan is for documenting those.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I submit that a good number of the references really are normative, in
> that understanding them is necessary in order to understand this
> document.  I'd like to see the authors sort that out, and make an
> appropriate split in the references, so readers can know which ones truly
> do just add extra detail (informative), and which provide necessary
> background (normative).  That said, I don't consider that important
> enough to this document to block on it, so this is a non-blocking
> comment.  Please consider doing this, but there is no need to respond to
> me about it.  Thanks.