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

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Tue, 30 April 2013 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: renum@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: renum@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38B521F9AF1 for <renum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 VrTlOk85YLq1 for <renum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C91E21F9AF0 for <renum@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from joels-MacBook-Air.local (host-64-47-153-50.masergy.com [64.47.153.50]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3UFhIpf077060 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:43:18 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <517FE691.2070707@bogus.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:43:13 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/21.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <5159F239.1060001@nostrum.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D6ED6C3@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <515AABB5.5050202@gmail.com> <517FE44C.7000609@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <517FE44C.7000609@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:43:19 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis@tools.ietf.org>, "renum@ietf.org" <renum@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [renum] Gen-art review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt
X-BeenThere: renum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Renumbering discussion mailing list." <renum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/renum>, <mailto:renum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/renum>
List-Post: <mailto:renum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:renum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/renum>, <mailto:renum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:43:28 -0000

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:rjsparks@nostrum.com]
>> ...
>>>> 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
>