Re: [renum] Gen-art review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt
On 30 Apr 2013, at 16:43, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 4/30/13 8:33 AM, Robert Sparks wrote: On 4/2/13 4:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Just picking a couple of points for further comment: On 02/04/2013 08:46, Liubing (Leo) wrote: [Bing] draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout is an important input for the gap analysis. Although the draft is expired, most of the content are still valid. draft-chown is a more comprehensive analysis, while the gap draft is focusing on gaps in enterprise renumbering. So it might not easy to abstract several points as important from draft-chown to this draft. We actually encourage people to read it. Robert is right, though, sending people to a long-expired draft is a bad idea. I'm not sure I see that as worse than referring to Wikipedia, an expired draft has the property that it's not going to change. I have no problem with the idea that it would be an informative reference. but yes it's a bit much to say go read this. Of course we have to acknowledge it, but maybe we should pull some of its text into an Appendix. Tim Chown, any opinion? The most recent version (and the one slated for the next telechat) still has this long-expired draft referenced. Hi, The old renumbering thinkabout draft came out of experiments on IPv6 renumbering we did in 6NET some 10 (yikes!) years ago, for both enterprise and ISP networks. I think most of what was written is still applicable. Brian borrowed a fair deal of it for RFC 5887. I stopped work on it as there was little/no interest in the problem in v6ops at the time (or whatever v6ops was called back then). We produced technical 6NET reports separately, and did some follow-up work with Cisco separately. Personally I don't mind if the principles are mentioned without the explicit reference - an ack in the Acknowledgements is adequate. It would be interesting to review the thinkabout draft to see how much still holds true. Glancing at it, sections like Application and Service-Oriented Issues are still very much relevant. I guess Stig and I could consider advancing it along the Independent Submission path, or look for publication to an appropriate journal. Life is short :) Tim
Re: [renum] Gen-art review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt
On 4/2/13 4:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Just picking a couple of points for further comment: On 02/04/2013 08:46, Liubing (Leo) wrote: Hi, Robert ... -Original Message- From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com] ... The document currently references draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout several times. That document is long expired (2006). It would be better to simply restate what is important from that document here and reference it only once in the acknowlegements rather than send the reader off to read it. [Bing] draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout is an important input for the gap analysis. Although the draft is expired, most of the content are still valid. draft-chown is a more comprehensive analysis, while the gap draft is focusing on gaps in enterprise renumbering. So it might not easy to abstract several points as important from draft-chown to this draft. We actually encourage people to read it. Robert is right, though, sending people to a long-expired draft is a bad idea. Of course we have to acknowledge it, but maybe we should pull some of its text into an Appendix. Tim Chown, any opinion? The most recent version (and the one slated for the next telechat) still has this long-expired draft referenced. RjS
Re: [renum] Gen-art review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt
On 4/30/13 8:33 AM, Robert Sparks wrote: On 4/2/13 4:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Just picking a couple of points for further comment: On 02/04/2013 08:46, Liubing (Leo) wrote: Hi, Robert ... -Original Message- From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com] ... The document currently references draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout several times. That document is long expired (2006). It would be better to simply restate what is important from that document here and reference it only once in the acknowlegements rather than send the reader off to read it. [Bing] draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout is an important input for the gap analysis. Although the draft is expired, most of the content are still valid. draft-chown is a more comprehensive analysis, while the gap draft is focusing on gaps in enterprise renumbering. So it might not easy to abstract several points as important from draft-chown to this draft. We actually encourage people to read it. Robert is right, though, sending people to a long-expired draft is a bad idea. I'm not sure I see that as worse than referring to Wikipedia, an expired draft has the property that it's not going to change. I have no problem with the idea that it would be an informative reference. but yes it's a bit much to say go read this. Of course we have to acknowledge it, but maybe we should pull some of its text into an Appendix. Tim Chown, any opinion? The most recent version (and the one slated for the next telechat) still has this long-expired draft referenced. RjS
Re: [renum] Gen-art review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt
Just picking a couple of points for further comment: On 02/04/2013 08:46, Liubing (Leo) wrote: Hi, Robert ... -Original Message- From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com] ... The document currently references draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout several times. That document is long expired (2006). It would be better to simply restate what is important from that document here and reference it only once in the acknowlegements rather than send the reader off to read it. [Bing] draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout is an important input for the gap analysis. Although the draft is expired, most of the content are still valid. draft-chown is a more comprehensive analysis, while the gap draft is focusing on gaps in enterprise renumbering. So it might not easy to abstract several points as important from draft-chown to this draft. We actually encourage people to read it. Robert is right, though, sending people to a long-expired draft is a bad idea. Of course we have to acknowledge it, but maybe we should pull some of its text into an Appendix. Tim Chown, any opinion? RFC4076 seems to say very similar things to this document. Should it have been referenced? [Bing] RFC4076 is a more specific case of stateless-DHCPv6 [RFC3736], which might not be common usage in enterprise. But sure we can consider reference it. Yes, and check if it identifies any gaps that we should mention. Bing: we should also add a reference to RFC 4085 Embedding Globally-Routable Internet Addresses Considered Harmful which I missed for RFC 6866. Section 5.3 punts discussion of static addresses off to RFC 6866. That document was scoped only to Enterprise Networks. The scope of this document is larger. As Bing said, the *intended* scope is enterprise networks. We should add that in the Abstract and Introduction. Indeed, many of the points are more general. Thanks again Robert! Brian
RE: [renum] Gen-art review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt
Hi, Brian The document currently references draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout several times. That document is long expired (2006). It would be better to simply restate what is important from that document here and reference it only once in the acknowlegements rather than send the reader off to read it. [Bing] draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout is an important input for the gap analysis. Although the draft is expired, most of the content are still valid. draft-chown is a more comprehensive analysis, while the gap draft is focusing on gaps in enterprise renumbering. So it might not easy to abstract several points as important from draft-chown to this draft. We actually encourage people to read it. Robert is right, though, sending people to a long-expired draft is a bad idea. Of course we have to acknowledge it, but maybe we should pull some of its text into an Appendix. Tim Chown, any opinion? [Bing] Ok, then we can hear some opinions from Tim. RFC4076 seems to say very similar things to this document. Should it have been referenced? [Bing] RFC4076 is a more specific case of stateless-DHCPv6 [RFC3736], which might not be common usage in enterprise. But sure we can consider reference it. Yes, and check if it identifies any gaps that we should mention. Bing: we should also add a reference to RFC 4085 Embedding Globally-Routable Internet Addresses Considered Harmful which I missed for RFC 6866. [Bing] Got it. I'll add it in the next version. Section 5.3 punts discussion of static addresses off to RFC 6866. That document was scoped only to Enterprise Networks. The scope of this document is larger. As Bing said, the *intended* scope is enterprise networks. We should add that in the Abstract and Introduction. Indeed, many of the points are more general. [Bing] OK. Thanks. Thanks again Robert! Brian
Re: [renum] Gen-art review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt
On 4/2/2013 2:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Just picking a couple of points for further comment: On 02/04/2013 08:46, Liubing (Leo) wrote: Hi, Robert ... -Original Message- From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com] ... The document currently references draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout several times. That document is long expired (2006). It would be better to simply restate what is important from that document here and reference it only once in the acknowlegements rather than send the reader off to read it. [Bing] draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout is an important input for the gap analysis. Although the draft is expired, most of the content are still valid. draft-chown is a more comprehensive analysis, while the gap draft is focusing on gaps in enterprise renumbering. So it might not easy to abstract several points as important from draft-chown to this draft. We actually encourage people to read it. Robert is right, though, sending people to a long-expired draft is a bad idea. Of course we have to acknowledge it, but maybe we should pull some of its text into an Appendix. Tim Chown, any opinion? I still think that old draft is fairly good, and a shame to let it all just die. But there is no chance of getting that out as an RFC I guess? Stig RFC4076 seems to say very similar things to this document. Should it have been referenced? [Bing] RFC4076 is a more specific case of stateless-DHCPv6 [RFC3736], which might not be common usage in enterprise. But sure we can consider reference it. Yes, and check if it identifies any gaps that we should mention. Bing: we should also add a reference to RFC 4085 Embedding Globally-Routable Internet Addresses Considered Harmful which I missed for RFC 6866. Section 5.3 punts discussion of static addresses off to RFC 6866. That document was scoped only to Enterprise Networks. The scope of this document is larger. As Bing said, the *intended* scope is enterprise networks. We should add that in the Abstract and Introduction. Indeed, many of the points are more general. Thanks again Robert! Brian
