Re: WG Last Call: a batch of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-*01 documents

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
> First of all, let me give a conclusion reached during an off-list thread 
> with you and the document editors.
> 
> We seem to be in agreement that the Historic documents should be removed,
> and those documents which have been obsoleted (should be only those which
> have been done after RFC3200 or so) be updated to point to the most recent
> versions.
> 
> I'll respond to other points inline (which don't seem more or less
> trivial); I'll remove those which are moot with this agreement.

And I in turn will have mercy upon the audience by only responding
where necessary :-)

> (Mike, if you'd like, I think it would be fair to add you as a co-editor
> of the document due to the huge amount of effort you've poured into it,
> but it's as you prefer.)

A mention in the acknowledgments section would be sufficient (in fact I
would prefer that).

> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, C. M. Heard wrote:
[ ... a proposal for including RFC 3584 with OPS Area full standards ... ]
> This would be a special case for including BCP's (other areas don't
> include them because analyzing them would be more work..), but you
> strongly prefer having it in here, I guess we can agree to that, as long
> as you provide the text :-)
> 
> Personally I'd just like to handwave it away (somehow), for consistency 
> reasons, but I understand if you'd like to have it included explicitly.

How about just leaving it out altogether?  I think you've already agreed
that RFC 2576 is to be cut, because it's obsolete.  And we've also agreed
that there are no IPv4 dependencies in RFC 3584 that need to be (or even
can be) corrected, so its presence in the survey does not add much value.
My main concern was to get rid of the incorrect text in the section
dealing with RFC 2576, and just cutting that section will accomplish
that goal with a minimum of fuss.

> > > > | 3.1 RFC 1157 Simple Network Management Protocol
> 
> It's historic, and could be removed due to the policy.. but if you'd 
> prefer to have it enabled, we could reword the text (and resolution in 
> section 7) to your liking.

Cut it, unless the WG wants to keep it.  That's what I wanted to do in
the first place;  I offered the alternative as a compromise.

That seems to cover everything that requires a response.  We must be
making progress, since these messages continue to get shorter :-)

Thanks,

Mike