Hi Fernando, On 03/09/2013 12:20, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 08/31/2013 10:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Hi Fernando, >> >> I'm biased, but I'd prefer the reference (your first suggestion), unless >> the ext-transmit draft gets stuck in the process, in which case you could >> make an editorial change later, even up to AUTH48. > > 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. > Anyone else has an opinion on this one? Chairs? > > >> 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. Brian > > Cheers, -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
