ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [renum] Gen-art review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt

2013-04-30 10:43:28
On 4/30/13 8:33 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
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.
I'm not sure I see that as worse than referring to Wikipedia, an expired draft has the property that it's not going to change. I have no problem with the idea that it would be an informative reference. but yes it's a bit much to say go read this.
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