Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-04

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

Jari,

I just responded to the gen-art list and Martin on his comments.

I have made a number of changes that address his comments and have used
much of his text.  ( I will be sending the Benoit and the rest of the IESG
a full summary of changes and new version posting tonight).

This includes the changes to section 6 as prescribed.

regards,

Victor K


On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jari Arkko <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks for your detailed review, Martin!
>
> And thank you Victor for a very useful document!
>
> Much of the discussion in this thread is important but also partly
> editorial. I'll leave it to sort out between yourselves.
>
> However, I do think Section 6 last sentence:
>
>    Should a provide choose to use non-assigned IP address space within
> their translation realms, then considerations may apply.
>
> gives an odd impression. We already have shared address space (as the
> document notes elsewhere), so it is not clear to me what the above might
> entail, particularly when (a) regular address space assignments go through
> the RIR system not IANA (b) use of unassigned address space is probably not
> something that we want to recommend and (c) if we need to do something
> beyond the existing shared address space allocation, then that probably
> deserves its own document.
>
> I can see that Victor you've already agreed to make a change wrt Section
> 6. I just wanted to check that this is indeed the plan, so that we can move
> on to approving the document :-)
>
> Jari
>
>