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

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

Jari/Martin,

With respect to section 6, I agree we can remove the odd text and I will
follow Martin's suggestion.  The inclusion of that text was a bit
historical as the document was actual first drafted before RFC6598.

I would agree that (as this point) that text, as I have in the document,
servers little value - so it will be removed.  I will also respond to
Martins last email and confirm some of the editorial changes.

Jari,  Please let me know if I need if you need to see a new draft spun
before approvals or if confirmation of the changes is sufficient (I am ok
with either).  I was trying to capture all final adjustments for a -05
version before publishing.

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
>
>