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

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Thanks! I have cleared.

Jari

On Jan 22, 2014, at 11:18 PM, Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
> 
>