I read Peter Koch's comments archived at http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg56447.htmlas a strong hint that this document, draft-iana-rfc3330bis-06,should be published as a BCP, and that the normative languageneeds to be strengthened forther, with a MUST NOT for allprivate/documentation/testing addresses regarding use andforwarding in the public Internet.I heartfully support this approach -- I did not understand whythat original intent had been changed during the update to the-05 version; IIRC, in my previous reviews of the document I hadnot recommended that change. And indeed, if this document is going to become a BCP, the history(Section 3) can (and should) be moved into an appendix. However, splitting off another tiny document solely for documentinga single new assignment seems to be overstressing of the resourcesof the IESG and the RFC publication process. Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. || Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 || D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah@xxxxxxxxx |+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________Ietf mailing listIetf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf