On 09/03/2013 07:44 AM, Ole Troan 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). > > I would prefer a normative reference to the ext-transmit document > for the definition of extension headers.
I have no problem with that option... However, the thing is that the reference is not normative in nature (i.e., IMHO it would be incorrect, as discussed with Brian). (please see the P.S., anyway). > I agree that we should publish these two documents together. +1 for this. Isn't there a way to request this without a normative ref? P.S.: Please do let me know if you'd like me to proceed with a normative ref... either way is fine with me... Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
