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

"Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com> Tue, 02 April 2013 12:36 UTC

Return-Path: <leo.liubing@huawei.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 150B521F976B; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 05:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 dQUq1fovwMPC; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 05:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608A421F9767; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 05:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id APZ64617; Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:36:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:36:01 +0100
Received: from nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.38) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:36:09 +0100
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.42]) by nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.38]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:36:05 +0800
From: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [renum] Gen-art review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOLxocMFWfMeFT5EmCEaSFUOUemZjCTHqg///gYoCAALD3MA==
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:36:05 +0000
Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D6ED729@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <5159F239.1060001@nostrum.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D6ED6C3@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <515AABB5.5050202@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <515AABB5.5050202@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.161]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
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 12:36:36 -0000

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