Re: [renum] [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt (updated for -07)

Stig Venaas <> Wed, 15 May 2013 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C9921F848A; Wed, 15 May 2013 15:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L2LaBY8ybORj; Wed, 15 May 2013 15:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36E421F8481; Wed, 15 May 2013 15:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 158438079; Thu, 16 May 2013 00:08:01 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 15:07:59 -0700
From: Stig Venaas <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <EMEW3|fe2727486afbb9ad7009bcf9319d50dbp4CIae03tjc||> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:,,, Robert Sparks <>
Subject: Re: [renum] [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt (updated for -07)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Renumbering discussion mailing list." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 22:08:05 -0000

On 5/15/2013 1:50 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Robert:
> Thanks again for your careful review, and for the authors and you for the discussion and revisions that resulted in a much improved document. I plan to support the document's approval in tomorrow's IESG telechat. A big part of my document approval decisions are the Gen-ART reviews, and they help me greatly.
> I think the expired draft discussion that you guys had is a minor side issue, but I thought I'd provide my perspective on it. While a normative reference to discontinued work is problematic, some informative references are IMHO OK and in some cases even necessary. One such category is expressing source of ideas or text. The correct attribution of material and ideas is important. From that point of view this particular reference is fine as far as I am concerned (though I am also fine with text in the acknowledgments section, which is what the draft has now).

As an author of both, I agree with Jari. I'm OK with the current text,
but I think we should have an informational reference since the draft
is mentioned in the text. It is pretty common to have informational
references to expired drafts (and any other document on the internet
that has a stable reference).


> Jari
> _______________________________________________
> renum mailing list