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

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Thanks Jim for your review.

A couple of comments; from the others also very welcome (especially on the 
second point of recommended actions for IPv4-only specifications).

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > This is a WG Last Call for comments on sending the following first
> > three "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards"
> > documents to the IESG for consideration as Informational RFCs:
> > 
> > Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 
> > Deployed IETF Standards
> >   
> >
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-01
> .txt
> 
> I don't see the point of section 1.2 it is commentary and it is
> imperative that this document just report the facts.  I do not agree or
> disagree with the statements I just don't see its value, and worst case
> it could affect the objectivity view of the readers impression of the
> document.

I can see that section 1.2 is a bit off-topic.  However, I think the core 
message is "don't just plan for upgrading from IPv4 to IPv6, consider IP 
version independence in general too".  

Perhaps the text could be tightened a bit if you agree with it?
 
> 3.1.1 This entire series of documents should not make judgement calls as
> is done with 1122 and 1123 (should be written wordage).  It should just
> say has IPv6 dependency which was done well in the next set of documents
> we have been asked to review.  Please remove all recommendations or
> perceived recommendations in this document series.

This is a double-edged sword.  We could remove all the recommendations 
(even weak recommendations), but I think it would diminish the value of 
the documents slightly.

That is, there are TONS of documents which document obsolete, historic or
dubious protocols and we give the subject matter experts an opportunity to
say "we don't need an upgrade for this [and possibly also state the
reason]" instead of doing the paperwork to get them historic etc.

I think this gives an average reader a better picture of what documents 
would need IPv6 updates and what not.  

Would you agree with this reasoning?  If not, is there something else than 
removing all the

Note that these are still "only" Informational documents.

Also note that all the uppercase SHOULD/MUST statements wrt. what should
be done should have been replaced with the lowercase ones, to give the
right impression that this is not a normative documents.  Some have
certainly slipped through (it seems to me at least).)

> I think the INTRO should be fixed before the others can move to INFO.

Yes, it includes everything besides and is a normative reference.

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