Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option

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

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]