Subject: Re: [renum] [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:28:38 -0700

Hi Brian,
At 08:32 16-04-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Of course, as an author I will follow whatever the WG chairs and AD
>decide is the consensus - it's just that doing a second downref Last Call
>for this document seems a bit OTT.

Agreed.

I agree with the comments posted by Ted Hardie at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg09296.html

RFC 2874 is a normative reference which is only mentioned in Section 
9.2.  The status of that RFC is Historic.

RFC 2894 is a normative reference.  It is referenced in Section 3.1 
(relevant protocols and mechanisms).  It is mentioned that the 
protocol is not widely used.  Should I read that RFC before reading 
draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05?

RFC 3971 is a normative reference in 
draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.  It is only referenced in the 
Security Considerations section.

RFC 3956 is listed both as an informative and a normative reference.

Section 1 mentions that:

   "This document does further analysis and identifies the valuable and
    solvable issues, digs out of some undiscovered gaps, and gives some
    solution suggestions."

Should I read RFC 5887, I-D.chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout and RFC 
4192 before reading draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy