Hi, Brian > >> 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? [Bing] Ok, then we can hear some opinions from Tim. > > >> 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. [Bing] Got it. I'll add it in the next version. > >> 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. [Bing] OK. Thanks. > Thanks again Robert! > > Brian