I see Ron has gotten back to Geoff and posted a new version of his
document. Since I've already stuck my nose out with questions before, I
might as well do so again. (For the record, my DISCUSS on another
document and the DISCUSS of me and a couple of others on another
document is what motivated Ron to write this one, so I feel a bit of
responsibility to make sure this gets done.)
So, some questions for SM:
On 11/29/12 9:22 PM, SM wrote:
BCP 153 is about Special Use IPv4 addresses. This intended BCP will
create a mishmash as the draft covers both IPv4 and IPv6. I suggest
handling the IP versions in two separate drafts.
I haven't seen anyone jump out of the woodwork in support of splitting
the document, and the document we've got on the table does it this way.
Do you think this is important enough to stop the document?
RFC 5375 is being obsoleted by this draft. RFC 6598 updates RFC
5375. Could someone explain that to me (see
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5375&eid=3309 and the
relevant discussion for details)?
I think you've confused the documents. It's 5735, not 5375. So I take it
this is not relevant, correct?
The following text is from RFC 3330 which was written by the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority:
"Throughout its entire history, the Internet has employed a central
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) responsible for the
allocation and assignment of various identifiers needed for the
operation of the Internet [RFC1174]. In the case of the IPv4 address
space, the IANA allocates parts of the address space to Regional
Internet Registries according to their established needs. These
Regional Internet Registries are responsible for the assignment of
IPv4 addresses to operators and users of the Internet within their
regions.
[paragraph omitted]
On an ongoing basis, the IANA has been designated by the IETF to make
assignments in support of the Internet Standards Process [RFC2860].
Section 4 of this document describes that assignment process."
The text was also present in RFC 5735. I unfortunately have to object
to the disappearance of that text.
This document does not change 2860 and it doesn't change 1174. So this
policy associated with this text is still in place, whether or not we
repeat the above paragraphs. Putting this text in seems unimportant and
I haven't seen support to do so. Can you explain how important this
objection is? Again, do you see this as a reason not to go forward?
RFC 5736 provides direction to IANA concerning the creation and
management of the IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry. The
information in RFC 5375 is not obsolete.
We do want 5735 to be obsolete because it is no longer the authoritative
list of addresses; the registry is. So I think you got that part wrong.
But you may have a point about *also* obsoleting 5736. I'll leave that
one to Ron and Ralph.
From the IANA Considerations Section:
Ron updated this to:
IANA will update the aforementioned registries as requested in the
"IANA Considerations" section of an IETF reviewed document. The
"IANA Considerations" section must include all of the information
specified in Section 2.1 of this document.
RFC 5735 mentions that:
"Among other things, [RFC2860] requires that protocol parameters be
assigned according to the criteria and procedures specified in
RFCs, including Proposed, Draft, and full Internet Standards and
Best Current Practice documents, and any other RFC that calls for
IANA assignment."
This draft changes it.
I don't understand what you mean here. Are you suggesting that this
document updates 2860, or somehow changes something in 2860? It does not
AFAICT. Please explain.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478