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

[Stig Venaas <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]]
>
> ...
>>> 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
>