Scott: Others have made a similar suggestion. I think it might be better to point to the IANA registry, instead of the RFC that created the registry. In addition, this document can create a registry for special-purpose AS numbers. Russ On Dec 16, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Scott O Bradner wrote: > 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. >> >> >