> Wouldn't it make sense for this document to at least mention that
> there is a synchronization error in terminology used by IANA with
> respect to terminology used in this document?
I agree that if there is a synchronization issue between IANA and our
docs, and our docs are correct, there is no need to mention that in
addr-arch. We can straighten things out via email. But before
approving addr-arch, I think we should be reasonably confident there
is nothing else in that document we want to tweak in order get the
pages the way we want them.
Somewhat related, I think it would be helpful to add something like the
following to the IANA considerations for addr arch (which is
effectively empty at the moment w.r.t. to allocation issues):
IANA considerations for the management of global unicast address
space can be found in [RFC 3513] and are not updated by this
document.
IANA considerations for the management of IPv6 multicast address
space can be found in [RFC 3307] and are not updated by this
document.
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
