At 18:43 28-11-2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
IMNSHO it would have been much better if the IAB had agreed that this
allocation was a policy matter to be left to IANA and the RIRs under
Clause 4.3 of RFC 2860 . Since the IAB chose to define it as a technical
allocation, it is the IETF that has to take responsibility, and it is a
lose-lose game for us. Whatever we decide is wrong.
I support Brian's comments.
FWIW, IANA does not do policy. The amended IANA RFP is explicit
about that. The IAB did not make any determination about
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request. As such, it can disclaim
any responsibility and go by IETF Consensus.
Some of the points raised during IESG evaluation have not been
addressed, i.e. the application angle, which is about NAT detection
code and not 6to4. Some of the arguments made in RFC 1627 might be
an eye-opener. BTW, RFC 6269 was published in June 2011. The
down-ref was not called out during the Last Call.
If the message from the sponsoring AD is about a determination of
consensus, please note that I am against the publication of the draft as a BCP.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf