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

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 30 April 2013 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.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 655E221F9900; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.604, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 vzeiUHvTRxKw; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA9721F98B9; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-173-57-99-236.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.99.236]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r3UFXWuF036166 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:33:33 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <517FE44C.7000609@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:33:32 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <5159F239.1060001@nostrum.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D6ED6C3@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <515AABB5.5050202@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <515AABB5.5050202@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 173.57.99.236 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
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 15:34:35 -0000

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.
> 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