Geoff, Thanks for your comments. Inline: > Firstly Section 2 describes the prefix as a 28 bit quantity, yet > section 7 (IANA Considerations) is not specific I suggest: adding "/28 > prefix" to the text in Section 7 (IANA Considerations) Right. > Secondly, in Section 7 the IANA allocation is described as > "temporary", yet there is no definition of what "temporary" means in > this context. The authors should be consulted to define "temporary" in > terms of clear instructions to IANA (e.g. unitil otherwise instructed > by the IESG, or for 5 years from the data of the allocation, etc). Agreed. > Thirdly, given that these IDs are not intended to be used in a > conventional sense of unicast addresses, then the IESG should > carefully consider why this allocation should be made from unicast > IPv6 address space. The draft does not provide a clear and coherent > rationale for such an allocation in my personal opinion. However, at > the size of a /28 this is more a point of principle than anything > else, and the IESG may be of the view that the requested allocation is > sufficiently small so as to present no particular concern one way or > another. The proper location has been up for discussion at various times. At the time that we decided to make the 2nd last call, the IESG and the authors felt that its more important to answer the high level questions first and that the exact placement in the space would not have a significant impact on the answer. As for the actual placement -- I would be inclined to listen to the advice of folks such as yourself on that. But you may be right above that its more about a point of principle than a practical consideration. --Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf