Re: [v6ops] AD review of draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Fred Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On May 5, 2017, at 8:06 AM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> First off, thank you for a clear, well written document.
>> I have completed my AD review, and had a few comments / suggestions.
>>
>> I'd also like to thank Fred for requesting early review, and Joe Clarke for
>> the helpful review. I agree with all of his comments, other than the xref in the
>> abstract -- but, see below on the Updates bit.
>>
>> I've annotated my comments with [C].
>>
>> W
>>
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>>   This document reserves the IPv6 prefix 64:ff9b:1::/48 for local use
>>   within domains that enable IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanisms.  This
>>   document updates RFC6890.
>>
>> [C]: This document updates RFC6890 by ... ? A very brief summary would be good.
>> Actually, I'm not really sure *why* this updates 6890, from what I can see it
>> simply reserves an additional prefix in the registry. If it really
>> *does* update 6890 it should also have a section clearly explaining
>> what changes it makes (including the "new" text). It's entirely
>> possible that I've missed
>> something really obvious here...
>
> Tore and I had a conversation about that, and came up with a possible solution. The argument for "updates" was that it creates a prefix that 6890-next should include. But the next question, and the context of our conversation, was the status - "standards track" vs "BCP". I argued that if the document updated a BCP, it should be a BCP. Tore argued that the prefixes 6890 reports are all in standards track documents.
>
> Our outcome, which I wonder if you would buy, would be to drop the "updates" aspect, but make this a "standards track" document that 6890-next might refer to as it does other standards track documents. Does that work?

That works for me. My reading of 6890 is that its purpose is to
restructure / update the registries. New registrations can simply be
requests to add to the registry. If there is another restructuring (or
a respin of 6890) it would incorporate / reference everything in the
registry.

So, yes, the current Proposed Standard seems right, just drop the
"Updates" bit and all is good...

>
> I'll leave the rest of your email between you and Tore.

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf