At 14:56 22-08-2011, Chris Donley wrote:
This proposal reached ARIN consensus (2011-5), and has been recommended
for adoption to the ARIN board. The ARIN BoD has indicated that it is
willing to reserve a /10 if asked to do so by the IETF/IANA.
[snip]
This will be supplied by IANA in consultation with ARIN. ARIN has not
pre-announced what block might be used, so we need to wait until IANA gets
back to us later in the process.
The information could have been mentioned as a note in the draft.
Not quite right. We first brought this proposal to OPSAWG in Maastricht,
and then updated it for Beijing. From the opsawg (79) minutes:
> Straw poll: more people in the room supported the draft than didn't,
> perhaps 2:1. About half the room expressed an opinion.
Because IANA was down to its final /8, we were asked to also present in
v6ops, which did not reach consensus for or against. Feedback from v6ops
was to approach the RIRs for space, rather than IANA, which we did.
And a RIR sent this back to the IETF.
How is this relevant? Jason, Victor, and I have been working on this for
over a year. Chris L and Marla joined the author team with significant
contributions when we substantially updated the draft prior to IETF79.
That was an editorial nit. Without the above explanation, it comes
through as a case of corporate name-dropping.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf