John,
This message is a point of information. I'll continue the discussion in
the other thread.
John C Klensin wrote:
Eliot,
There are at least two things that are wrong with the model you describe
below,...
(1) The assignment of address space, and the whole
notion of private networks with specialized space, are
not "just options" to a protocol, regardless of whatever
else they may be or may have been.
My point is simply that there is an analogy to be drawn between the two
in terms of ramifications.
(2) RFC 1597 was fairly extensively discussed within the
IESG and, if I recall, on the IETF list. Its
substantially equivalent successor, RFC 1918, was Last
Called in the IETF and approved as a BCP document.
I'm quite certain that RFC 1597 was only approved ex post facto, and
only after Tom Kessler, Dave Crocker, Erik Fair, and I made a huge stink
about the complete lack of review (RFC 1627). Once the document was
released there were very heated discussions between the IESG, the IAB,
and, well, me. But the record shows no discussions prior to release at
the IESG level.
RFC 1918 was done in part due to recognition that the authors had not
been sufficiently careful about circumscribing the use of the
allocation, and after my appeal over the allocation had failed.
History lesson over.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf