IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 02 April 2013 09:58 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 D910121F97A6; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 02:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.48
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, 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 Yt7JYDKMwFsg; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 02:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22e.google.com (mail-we0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07AC21F9776; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 02:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u12so179306wey.33 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 02 Apr 2013 02:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sn/5PJyrWKgXR2Yr614/5IZ0Wx5Bb9oYiO+TYeHmQnI=; b=VEpnfDuuQD/pYpfOM3xOejxmcSNxgJmp5ZDwGKmB8/MKXKWnCsuLPJ3Wp7aZ9iKgOq b85yhPcDJtRn/36G2l8iY/gQUFMrmpl1oyTSOzMd+09kKGqBL+fCMcV2z1eKtgMP8hIa xmBmz/mUDQqn0RMV/E7QxYhaivRytXZLJcpSi0qZ6ZCOUS8aLNdC9FItXb53YM0OaEww DqjNsm0MYPBI8VERhmwmS3sgXaOXKDtOGB8Dhu86H4lFRgMZ5dZQxdFDs1MJsRijNQPx TiiFyW37jA/duxSBTgjlNH4QtfcODtQNySBqI/ICyCzQSGN+3nFy5O6sgQp0r/Ap4Wh3 Wa2A==
X-Received: by 10.194.89.169 with SMTP id bp9mr20469780wjb.57.1364896691847; Tue, 02 Apr 2013 02:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.232.110.128] (c128.al.cl.cam.ac.uk. [128.232.110.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bk1sm1494604wib.2.2013.04.02.02.58.10 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Apr 2013 02:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <515AABB5.5050202@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:58:13 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
References: <5159F239.1060001@nostrum.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D6ED6C3@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D6ED6C3@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "renum@ietf.org" <renum@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis@tools.ietf.org>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
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, 02 Apr 2013 09:58:45 -0000

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.
Of course we have to acknowledge it, but maybe we should pull some of its text
into an Appendix.

Tim Chown, any opinion?

>> RFC4076 seems to say very similar things to this document. Should it
>> have been referenced?
> 
> [Bing] RFC4076 is a more specific case of stateless-DHCPv6 [RFC3736], which might not be common usage in enterprise. But sure we can consider reference it. 

Yes, and check if it identifies any gaps that we should mention.

Bing: we should also add a reference to RFC 4085 "Embedding Globally-Routable
Internet Addresses Considered Harmful" which I missed for RFC 6866.

>> Section 5.3 punts discussion of static addresses off to RFC 6866. That
>> document was scoped
>> only to Enterprise Networks. The scope of this document is larger. 

As Bing said, the *intended* scope is enterprise networks. We should
add that in the Abstract and Introduction. Indeed, many of the points
are more general.

Thanks again Robert!

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email