Re: [renum] Gen-art review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 4/30/13 8:33 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> On 4/2/13 4:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Just picking a couple of points for further comment:
>>
>> On 02/04/2013 08:46, Liubing (Leo) wrote:
>>> Hi, Robert
>> ...
>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> ...
>>>> The document currently references
>>>> draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout
>>>> several times.
>>>> That document is long expired (2006). It would be better to simply
>>>> restate what is
>>>> important from that document here and reference it only once in the
>>>> acknowlegements
>>>> rather than send the reader off to read it.
>>> [Bing] draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout is an important input 
>>> for the gap analysis. Although the draft is expired, most of the 
>>> content are still valid.
>>> draft-chown is a more comprehensive analysis, while the gap draft is 
>>> focusing on gaps in enterprise renumbering. So it might not easy to 
>>> abstract several points as important from draft-chown to this draft. 
>>> We actually encourage people to read it.
>> Robert is right, though, sending people to a long-expired draft is a 
>> bad idea.
I'm not sure I see that as worse than referring to Wikipedia, an expired 
draft has the property that it's not going to change. I have no problem 
with the idea that it would be an informative reference.   but yes it's 
a bit much to say go read this.
>> Of course we have to acknowledge it, but maybe we should pull some of 
>> its text
>> into an Appendix.
>>
>> Tim Chown, any opinion?
> The most recent version (and the one slated for the next telechat) 
> still has this long-expired draft referenced.
>
> RjS
>