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

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, C. M. Heard wrote:
> > 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.

Well, someone sharp-eyed could some calling us and complain why it was not 
included .. :-)

.. but just removing it is fine with me, and simpler; if you feel (as an 
OPS expert) that's the best thing to do, it's fine for us I think.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings