On 4/2/13 4:58 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?
The most recent version (and the one slated for the next telechat) still
has this long-expired draft referenced.
RjS