michael.dillon@xxxxxx wrote: >> 1. This is NOT ARIN's decision to make, nor that of any of >> the other RIRs, because the /48 decision is not independent >> of many other design decisions in IPv6. >> > > Show me the document where this is explained. > for the most part, we don't document the rationale for our design decisions, and we're even less likely to document the interdependencies between our design decisions. that doesn't mean that such interdependencies don't exist. >> 2. If ARIN or any of the other RIRs have concerns about an >> IETF design decision, they need to express that to IETF and >> ask IETF to fix it. >> > > ARIN, like the IETF, is mainly a bunch of individuals. I, as an > individual with a history of involvement in ARIN (I was a founding > member of the ARIN Advisory Council), have already come to this mailing > list, which ostensibly is frequented by individuals who have a history > of involvement in the IETF. I have already asked the IETF to fix this. > > Clearly you do not believe that a request from an individual is > sufficient. Since the IETF seems to be defined by its documents, I > wonder which RFC I can refer to in order to find out the correct formal > process for ARIN to follow in order to ask the IETF to fix the problem? > has ARIN, acting as an organization, attempted to communicate this to IETF at all? I don't know that there is a single correct way to do this, but sending a note to IESG and/or IAB detailing the concerns and the reasons for ARIN's current policy, and (if the material is long enough) writing an internet-draft to support that note, both seem like useful and appropriate ways of communicating concerns to IETF. > The fact is that we need a document explaining the IPv6 architecture as > it stands today. A document that can guide the RIRs but also the many > IPv4 network designers who are being forced to architect or design their > first IPv6 network. A compact document that fairly states the IETF's > intent with regard to IPv6. But most importantly of all, this document > must answer objections and common misunderstanding. Failure to do this > last item, is failure to communicate, which will cause many people to > waste time and waste a lot of money. The document sounds like a good idea. > You can't answer objections and > correct misunderstandings unless you participate in forums *OUTSIDE* the > IETF where the objections and misunderstandings arise. > well, mumble. we can't be expected to participate in all of those fora. there are too many of them and just keeping up with IETF is difficult enough. maybe what we need is a better interface for "outsiders". something like an FAQ file and a way to submit new questions. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf