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

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

On 30 Apr 2013, at 16:43, joel jaeggli <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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:
>>>> 
>>>> [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.


Hi,

The old renumbering "thinkabout" draft came out of experiments on IPv6 renumbering we did in 6NET some 10 (yikes!) years ago, for both enterprise and ISP networks. I think most of what was written is still applicable.  Brian borrowed a fair deal of it for RFC 5887.  I stopped work on it as there was little/no interest in the problem in v6ops at the time (or whatever v6ops was called back then). We produced technical 6NET reports separately, and did some follow-up work with Cisco separately.

Personally I don't mind if the principles are mentioned without the explicit reference - an ack in the Acknowledgements is adequate. 

It would be interesting to review the "thinkabout" draft to see how much still holds true.  Glancing at it, sections like "Application and Service-Oriented Issues" are still very much relevant. I guess Stig and I could consider advancing it along the Independent Submission path, or look for publication to an appropriate journal.  Life is short :)

Tim