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

["Liubing (Leo)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Brian

> >> 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?

[Bing] Ok, then we can hear some opinions from Tim.

> 
> >> 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.

[Bing] Got it. I'll add it in the next version.

> >> 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.

[Bing] OK. Thanks.

> Thanks again Robert!
> 
>    Brian