[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3330-for-ipv6-01.txt

Le 07-10-03 à 17:09, Niall O'Reilly a écrit :



On 3 Oct 2007, at 14:13, Marc Blanchet wrote:
I understand your comment. However, the issues you are raising (as well as others) related to 6to4 are already in the 6to4 security RFC (RFC3964), which is already referenced in the 6to4 paragraph. Therefore, I would suggest not to add any additional text in order to not repeat what is already throughly discussed in RFC3964.
I understand your response, and have some sympathy with your point of view.
I see two possible goals here: "communication" and "documentation". I'm not sure whether both are intended goals of the document being drafted. I think 
	they should be.
Repetition is a nuisance in documentation, as it involves parallel maintenance. OTOH, appropriate repetition is useful in communication, as it helps underline 
	the message.
My sense of the purpose of this document is that its readers ought to be adequately or even compellingly guided towards doing "the right thing". What prompted me to comment as I did was that, in reading it, I didn't quite find 
	the kind of guidance I was looking for.
I agree completly on the principle. If you refer to the first versions of the document, that was the intent and I covered more stuff around this to help people do the right thing concerning routing policies. Actually, the first title of the document was "IPv6 routing policies guidelines". But there were people concerned about that direction. Therefore, it was decided to do something similar to RFC3330, which roughly documents the special IPv6 addresses with very few if any info on routing policies. that was the compromise to get the document with concensus. Therefore, I'm trying to stick to the guidance that was previously agreed on the scope/direction of the document , which is about near zero reference to routing policies.
summary: I agree with your comment, but to my knowledge, this is not the direction the wg wanted the document to have. 

Marc.
I'll read it again a couple of times, and consider whether I was simply in 
	unreceptive form whenever I read it before.


	Best regards,

	Niall O'Reilly
	University College Dublin IT Services

	PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net)
	Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9





-----
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley, 2006, http://www.ipv6book.ca