ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

2017-01-12 15:24:41
Brian,

On Jan 11, 2017, at 7:32 AM, Brian Haberman 
<brian(_at_)innovationslab(_dot_)net> wrote:

Hi Bob,

On 1/10/17 7:48 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Brian,

Thanks for the review!

On Jan 10, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Brian Haberman
<brian(_at_)innovationslab(_dot_)net> wrote:

Reviewer: Brian Haberman Review result: Ready with Nits

I just have a few comments/questions on this draft. Overall, it is
in pretty good shape...

1. Section 2.2.3 looks like a complete re-production of RFC 5952,
but I don't see a reference to 5952. Is the intent to deprecate
5952 since its content is now contained within 4291bis?

I didn’t include a direct reference in the Section as incorporates
the changes, but it is included in Appendix B describing the
changes.

No current intent to deprecate RFC5952 as it updates RFC4291.  I
don’t see very much value in deprecating (Historic?) the updating
RFCs.

I will agree with Randy that there is useful info in 5952 that people
need to see. Adding a reference to 5952 here would point people in the
right direction.

Makes sense, I will add a reference to RFC5952 in the next version of the draft.

Thanks,
Bob


Regards,
Brian