Re: RFC number for draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-03.txt

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

Hi Joyce,

The draft that Kuntal mentions is just a short informational document
that deprecates the "aggregatable" address format without replacing
it.  So, I'm not sure that accelerating availability of this RFC
number is necessary.

Kuntal, we eliminated this address format altogether, and we are
no longer specifying the internal structure of IPv6 address
prefixes at this level (the old TLA/NLA fields).  Depending on
why your document is referencing the old RFC, it may work just
to remove the reference, or you may need to make further changes
to your document, to remove any references that it makes to the
TLA/NLA rules.

If you can explain to me why/how you are referencing the old
document, I would be happy to help you figure out the best way
forward, but it is unlikely that you want to include a normative
reference to the new document, as it is merely an informational
document.  It doesn't contain any normative technical information,
it just deprecates the old document.

All of the technical information on IPv6 addressing is now
contained in the latest IPv6 Addressing Architecture (RFC 3513).

Margaret

At 09:36 AM 8/6/2003 -0700, Joyce Reynolds wrote:
> Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-MD5: mnkQxbuR9/pwdpjRy/NYJw==
>
>
>
> IESG:
>
> The RFC Editor has received a request for an RFC number from Kuntal
> Chowdhury for <draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-03.txt>.  (See message
> below.)  Does the IESG want to request expedited publication of this
> document?
>
> Thanks, Joyce
>
> ------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------
>
> From: "Kuntal Chowdhury" <chowdury@nortelnetworks.com>
> To: "'rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org'" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> Subject: RFC number for draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-03.txt
> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:29:09 -0500
>
> Hello,
>
> Would you kindly assign an RFC number for
> "draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-03.txt" as soon as possible. There is a
> normative reference in a TIA standard (TIA-835-C) to RFC 2374 that this
> draft obsoletes (makes it historic). The TIA-835-C is ready for publication
> at this time. However, it still references RFC2374 since there is no
> alternative RFC number for IPv6 addressing architecture. It would be nice to
> have the RFC2374 reference replaced with the new RFC number before
> publication of this TIA standard.
>
> Thanks for your help in this matter and best regards,
>
> -Kuntal
>
> ------------- End Forwarded Message -------------
>
> Content-Type: TEXT/html; name=NoName; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Description: NoName
> Content-MD5: E0nuU8jAi8x3sdX21RwGIA==
>
> Hello,
>
> Would you kindly assign an RFC number for 
> "draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-03.txt" as soon as possible. There is a 
> normative reference in a TIA standard (TIA-835-C) to RFC 2374 that this 
> draft obsoletes (makes it historic). The TIA-835-C is ready for 
> publication at this time. However, it still references RFC2374 since there 
> is no alternative RFC number for IPv6 addressing architecture. It would be 
> nice to have the RFC2374 reference replaced with the new RFC number before 
> publication of this TIA standard.
>
> Thanks for your help in this matter and best regards,
>
> -Kuntal