David, On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:56 PM, David Farmer <farmer@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 1. The part about RFC2860 in Section 1 seems like an incomplete thought, at the very least it seems awkward to me. I'm really not sure what you are intending to say. But, I agree RFC2860 is relevant to the discussion. I'm just not sure you have nailed what to say about it. I suspect it might be a bit hard for Russ to take action on this point without a bit more info as to what you feel is awkward or what's missing. > 2. I really like the idea of creating a "Special-Purpose AS Number Registry". However, it may be a better idea to spin-off the creation of a "Special-Purpose AS Number Registry" into a separate draft. I'm concerned that trying to do two important things in the same document will fail to achieve one or both of the important things. While I don't oppose splitting the docs, I'm not sure it's necessary as I don't believe there's anything controversial in Russ's draft. What do you foresee as blocking the document or causing it to fail in either of its goals? > For instance the simple section 3 you have currently worries me. I'd really think RFC6890 is the template to use for creating a "Special-Purpose AS Number Registry", more below. Seem's a bit of overkill to me (I like short documents). Regards, -drc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail