ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice

2012-12-21 02:19:29
Hi Pete,
At 15:33 20-12-2012, Pete Resnick wrote:
I haven't seen anyone jump out of the woodwork in support of splitting the document, and the document we've got on the table does it this way. Do you think this is important enough to stop the document?

No, as I cannot justify this if I follow to the DISCUSS criteria.

I think you've confused the documents. It's 5735, not 5375. So I take it this is not relevant, correct?

I used RFC 5735 as an example. There is a message from the person who submitted the erratum at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg13689.html The threads of the discussion are at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg13645.html and http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg13681.html It's difficult for the average reader to understand what is the current "standard" when document status, "updates" and "obsoletes" requires convoluted tracking.

This document does not change 2860 and it doesn't change 1174. So this policy associated with this text is still in place, whether or not we repeat the above paragraphs. Putting this text in seems unimportant and I haven't seen support to do so. Can you explain how important this objection is? Again, do you see this as a reason not to go forward?

I missed RFC 1174.  I'll drop the objection as your explanation is convincing.

We do want 5735 to be obsolete because it is no longer the authoritative list of addresses; the registry is. So I think you got that part wrong. But you may have a point about *also* obsoleting 5736. I'll leave that one to Ron and Ralph.

Ok.

I don't understand what you mean here. Are you suggesting that this document updates 2860, or somehow changes something in 2860? It does not AFAICT. Please explain.

No.  Anyway, the probability of such an update being successful is zero. :-)

Regards,
-sm