I’m not sure it is helpful to have the special use IPv4 address in more than one RFC i.e., why not just point to RFC 6890 rather than reproduce it? and if there is a reason to make a new one then this doc should unambiguously obsolete RFC 6890 Scott On Dec 16, 2013, at 12:55 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > - 'Internet Numbers Registries' > <draft-housley-number-registries-02.txt> as Informational RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2014-01-22. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > RFC 7020 provides information about the Internet Numbers Registry > System and how it is used in the distribution of autonomous system > (AS) numbers and globally unique unicast Internet Protocol (IP) > address space. > > This companion document identifies the IANA registries that are part > of the Internet Numbers Registry System at this time. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-number-registries/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-number-registries/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > >