Thomas,
At 05:57 PM 05/16/2005, Thomas Narten wrote:
Bob,
> This raises the question I have had for a while, is when doing updates to > existing standard what to put in the IANA section. It seems to me it > should be what changes should be made to the IANA registries, not a > complete copy. This is very different from the technical content of the > document.
Yep. And I don't have a one-size-fits all answer. I've seen some documents just repeat the old section, but as you note that reads funny if IANA has already done the work.
And since this document is obsoleting RFC 3513, it seems odd to point back to it for definitive text.
I'm not sure the IESG has thought in a lot of detail about the significance of obsoleting a document that contains an IANA considerations section.
But, having said that, when trying to find the IANA considerations related to a name space, it can be rather interesting sometimes just trying to track down the pointers. So, I prefer seeing at least some pointers to other documents than nothing at all.
I agree with what you are saying. The problem here is that even RFC3513 isn't consistent with what is on the IANA page (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space). It was, of course, changed the RFC3879, RFC-carpenter-obsolete-1888-01.txt, and RFC-huston-ip6-iana-registry-05.txt. Some of the history for each entry can be deduced from the references on the IANA page, but I agree it is not the complete history. It would be nice if the IANA kept a publicly accessible log of each change. That might helpful in the future.
My wording was an attempt to provide at least the start of a reference, while still making it clear that this document isn't changing any of the rules that are already in place.
I understand.
> Instead of what you suggested, I think something like the following would > be better:
> No other IANA IPv6 address registries need to be changed based on > this document.
For me, having a reference to other documents is really the purpose of adding something to this section. The above doesn't really add much beyond complete silence.
It does at least say nothing else was changed :-)
> A few reasons for this include the references to 3513 and 3307 doesn't > capture the complete history of the current IANA registries and this > document will obsolete 3513 and this might make the note confusing.
Another possibility is to include some (but perhaps not the entire table) from RFC 3513, but point out that the new text is being included for completeness and doesn't establish any new policy. That might be a better the referring to an obsoleted document.
As noted above, the format was changed in RFC-huston-ip6-iana-registry-05.txt so that might well cause more confusion. We wouldn't want the IANA to change it back to the old format. :-(
What I was trying to achieve was a balance between repeating all the history (which is sometimes a bit convoluted) with at least a pointer on where to get started for the details. But maybe we shouldn't even go here... :-(
I agree, there isn't any simple solution. I am starting to think it best to not say anything else about the history here short of trying to capture the whole history. What do you think?
Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
