Brian, thank you for your comments.
On 2011/11/09, at 10:11, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Hi, > > I think I'm going to make myself unpopular. > > Reading this document as a proposed standard, I think it will confuse the > reader. > I think that what we actually need is a 100% replacement of RFC 3484, that > can be read on its own. > > (We've been here before - the same argument is why we ended up doing 3697bis.) > > If that is not done, I would suggest reorganising the text so that (after > a short Introduction) the reader finds: > > - firstly, a complete but concise statement of the normative changes made to > 3484 > (such as section 2.1.5, and the new rules 5.1 and 9) > > - secondly, the explanations (such as sections 2.1.1-2.1.4). > > An implementer would only need to read the first part. This document had started as an update, because there was not so many things to update at first. As the document gets older, it got a bit bigger than I had expected. So, which of update or replace do you prefer ? > > Trivia: > > Needs a header: Updates: 3484 (if approved) > >> 4. IANA Considerations >> >> Address type number for the policy table may have to be assigned by >> IANA. > > You can't say "may", you have to tell IANA exactly what to do in which > registry. Thanks ! -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
