| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
good mornin' thomas, >> my memory of the discussion at the meeting was >> o there is precedent for apnic doing this > What precendent, other than the IPv6 prefix? that's it. the perception seemed to be that it worked. > This sort of global reservation is best made by IANA (at the request > of someone). We have lots of examples/precedent for that. The IETF is > the logical place for the request to come from. that last is not completely clear. it's at the border between ops/rirs and tech/ietf. >> o for it to have global/formal effect, there probably should be an rfc >> directing the iana > If APNIC makes the reservation, IANA can only record what APNIC has > done after the fact. as it did with the v6 documentation prefix. this is perceived as having worked. >> o but an apnic allocation would do in the long meantime > I disagree about the "long" part. The IETF can do this quickly too. ( i will keep my mouth shut. i will keep my mouth shut. ... :) > Also, it wouldn't be a "meantime". Once APNIC makes the reservation, > it cannot be revoked, since the vendor might have already put bit into > documentation. is there a problem with this? is it a bug or a feature? > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huston-as-documentation-reservation-00 so we have the volunteer. folk did look at him with expectation. so what is actually broken here? ietf's tosies being stepped on? randy
