At 13:45 12-05-2013, Tom Vest wrote:
I certainly did not intend to misrepresent your position. But given
the fact that the
"part of a message" that you reproduced was offered in response to
doubts that you yourself raised about the points covered therein
(esp. "operational need"), what is your position, exactly? As David
said, "to date" the communities have established policies that are
broadly informed by the practical implications of the finitude and
uniqueness constraints on address resource management. However, to
conclude based on past observations that such will always be true
would be tantamount to claiming that management of those
constraints is assured by the operation of (unspecified
self-executing, self-sustaining) principles. Based on your views as
expressed in/around draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00, it's
pretty clear that you don't see any durable, much less "timeless"
principles embodied therein -- but that only makes your position on
these matters all the more ambiguous.
I prefer to keep draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01 separate from other
drafts to keep matters simple. My position is that it is better to
work towards consensus.
Perhaps it would help if you would answer the following clarifying questions:
1. Is it your position that some other force or principle(s) outside
of the general mechanisms/practices documented in RFC2050 (and
potentially, RFC2050-bis) guarantees that IETF-defined addressing
protocols will "just work" as designed, in perpetuity, and thus the
informational codification of matters related to the management of
finitude and uniqueness constraints is at best unnecessary, at worst
counterproductive? If so, what are those unnamed forces/principles, exactly?
2. Is it your position that, if the traditional "communities
interested in IP addressing" one day elect to adopt policies that
make it impossible for IETF addressing protocols to fulfill even the
basic "just work" test, then from the "IETF view" that should be
regarded as a perfectly appropriate and acceptable outcome?
I don't have an opinion about questions (1) or (2).
Could you please clarify which passages about Internet address
architecture you are suggesting are sufficient to make the sections
about distribution and uniqueness constraints unnecessary?
The comment was in a reply to a comment from another person. There
wasn't any mention of "distribution and uniqueness constraints" in
the quoted text.
Regards,
-sm