On 2011-08-20 09:30, Peter Koch wrote: ... > o draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space-01.txt would have to be elevated > to a normative reference, with all consequences I don't think this is really required; it is after all an explanatory document. However, I do think that *if* draft-weil- is to be published, draft-bdgks needs to be published simultaneously. Therefore, I think that synchronised Last Calls are needed. I have previously argued against draft-weil on the OPSAWG list and lost, so I will not repeat that argument here. However, if it is to proceed, then some of my WGLC comments have not yet been fixed: >> At the very minimum, if draft-weil is to proceed, it should describe the >> phase-out plan for the proposed prefix (i.e. the phase-out plan for CGN >> deployment). One approach to that is documented in RFC 6264. The authors didn't agree with that comment, but since this is essentially an operational matter, I think they are wrong. If the IETF sticks its nose into RIR matters in this way (as the IAB has concluded that we should*), then we should do a complete job. >> It is strange that draft-weil doesn't reference RFC 6319 and RFC 6269. In other words, draft-weil doesn't recognise the counter-arguments. That seems wrong to me. Brian Carpenter * http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2011-2/response-to-arins-request-for-guidance-regarding-draft-policy-arin-2011-5/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf