Thomas: > Overall, this document looks good. But a couple of suggestions. > > As a general comment, I think the document should include a reference > wherever it states what a policy is (as defined elswhere). > >> Reservations of special-purpose AS Numbers are made through Internet >> Standards actions. > > Citation of where that policy is defined? I have updated the document; it will be posted as -03. It now uses "IETF Review" throughout. > But then later, the document says:: > >> 3. IANA Considerations >> >> "IETF Review" as defined in [RFC5226] is required to reserve special- >> purpose AS numbers, IPv4 addresses, or IPv6 addresses. Reserved AS >> numbers, IPv4 addresses, or IPv6 addresses may be designated to >> support testing, IETF experimental activities, or other special uses >> (e.g., anycast). These reservations are recorded in the relevant > > which contradicts the previous statement. > > Also, would be good to cite all the individual RFCs when restating > what the policy is for each registries listed above. I have reworked this as suggested by David Conrad. It now points to the existing IANA registry, which already requires "IETF Review" for additions. >> Reservation of special-purpose IPv4 addresses are made through >> Internet Standards actions. Reserved IPv4 unicast addresses are >> registered in the Special Purpose IP address registries [RFC6890]. > > Citation for first sentence? I have reworked this as suggested by David Conrad. It now points to the existing IANA registry, which already requires "IETF Review" for additions. >> The vast bulk of the IPv6 address space (approximately 7/8ths of the >> whole address space) is reserved by the IETF, with the expectation > > For first sentence, cite where that reservation/delegation was made > (i.e., RFC 3513). Okay. Russ