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(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)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