[v6ops] Re: summary of docs related to NAT64 - status

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

"[e-mail]" wrote:
    > I understood that, my point is that (in my personal point of view), it
    > is confusing and prefer a single STD for each RFC as we are used to. I
    > guess many people looking for documents in a regular search is not used
    > also to that, and can miss the point.

I don't see the point of having a unique number like that.

1. We already have an RFC#
2. If we were to revise/update/etc. any of these documents, the *update*
   document (if we didn't replace/obsolete) would go with the original.
3. Consumers/procuring people now risk forgetting to ask for part of what
   they need.  That was the POINT of the STD series.
   A stable set of numbers for complete specifications.

    > Moreover, is quite subjective what is a cluster, what documents really
    > belong to the same group (and we had the example of the 6man docs that
    > Michael mention).

I think we goofed for STD87.

    > Is a decision of the WG to “select” what docs are in the cluster or the
    > RFCeditor or how? What if we are talking about documents in different
    > WGs or even different areas?

I think it's up to the WG to recommend our preference to the IESG, who will
ultimately make the decision.

    > For example, now we have STD103 for the RFC7757. If RFC6146 is advanced
    > to IS, it is the same cluster or not? Or what about RFC7755 and
    > RFC7756.

Same cluster.

    > I think it can create useless and endless debates, unless that is
    > perfectly crystal clear in some RFC how to manage the relation among
    > documents in a “cluster”.

Let's advance so many PS to IS that this is actually a burden, okay? :-)

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
]       My working hours and your working hours may be different.            [
]  Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours   [