> I agree with Michel. Although Thomas is logically correct, > I think that including section 2.0 and putting this on > standards track is a necessary signal to ensure that TLAs > are really understood to be dead.
If you want to be explicit about TLA/NLA being dead why not have a section 2.0 titled "TLA and NLA are dead" with a shortish explanation of why and with an informational reference to the registries document? > I also think the explicit reference to 2000::/3 is useful. > It's the only space currently being allocated. Because this might confuse people that they should only code for 2000::/3 in their implementation? We tried to make this clear in addr-arch-v3 (hopefully clear enough) but this document is not clear enough on that issue. Since RFCs live forever the "currently being allocated" argument might not be a good argument. Finally, assuming that this document isn't going standardize anything (now that the documentation prefix is removed) I think it makes sense having be an informational document that is part of a protocol action which moves RFC 2374 to historic. Only if this document standardizes some replacement to 2374 would it make sense for it to be proposed standard. Examples of "move to historic" documents are RFC 3197 and RFC 3167. They tend to explain why and what is being made historic with varying levels of detail. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
