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

Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Tue, 02 April 2013 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <stig@venaas.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 69CC021F8A0C; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 10:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 Dh7uvGymbpT4; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 10:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5EED21F89E2; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 10:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.33.12.93] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61D568012; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:24:55 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <515B140C.3060707@venaas.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:23:24 -0700
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
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
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@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 17:24:58 -0000

On 4/2/2013 2:58 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?

I still think that old draft is fairly good, and a shame to let it all
just die. But there is no chance of getting that out as an RFC I guess?

Stig

>
>>> 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
>