On 09/03/2013 02:03 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> As noted, I'm open to any of the two options. That said, would a >> normative ref to draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit be really appropriate/correct? >> >> If you think about it, that'd be an "informational reference" rather >> than an authoritative one... (you don't need to read >> draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit to understand >> draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-05.txt). For instance, the IANA >> registry itself is not a normative reference. > > Logically, you're correct. It would just be a shame for it to come out > as a "work in progress" reference instead of an RFC. Maybe we can ask for > the two RFCs to be published at the same time.
Agreed. I will rev the I-D as described (but with an informational ref to your I-D), and will note the RFC-Ed about this. -- However, my take is that this will be nevertheless the case (draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit will be published at the same time or before oversized-header-chain). >>> BTW check the IANA URL too; I think you had a pointer to a .txt file, but >>> these days IANA is .xml based. >> >> Do you know which file is the authoritative one? > > If you follow links from the IANA home page, you get to > https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml > As far as I know that is the primary reference. Ok, I will replace the TXT URL with the XML URL -- worst case scenario, this will fixed (if needed) later on. Thanks so much! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
