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
