Re: [GROW] How to progress - Private IP in SP Core

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Morrow" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; "Anthony Kirkham" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 1:22 PM
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Anthony Kirkham
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I have just uploaded "draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores-00" on
> datatracker. It has sent me the full access URL email, but given the last
> time I thought it was all uploaded OK, and wasn't, I'd appreciate if someone
> could verify the upload was successful

I approved the submit, congrats!

<tp>
Yippee

I would suggest changing the normative reference to
bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space]
since that is now expired and so would delay things.
draft-weil
is in the RFC Editor's queue so that is ok.

Perhaps
OLD
 To address this scenario and others, at the time of writing, work was
   in progress to obtain a dedicated /10 address block for the purpose
   of Shared CGN (Carrier Grade NAT) Address Space.  Please refer to
   [bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space] and [weil-shared-transition-
   space-request] for details.  The purpose of Shared CGN Address Space
   is to number CPE (Customer Premise Equipment) interfaces that connect
   to CGN devices.  As explained in [weil-shared-transition-space-
   request], RFC1918 addressing has issues when used in this deployment
   scenario.

NEW
 To address this scenario and others, the IETF has allocated a dedicated /10
address block for the purpose
   of Shared CGN (Carrier Grade NAT) Address Space.  Please refer to
[weil-shared-transition-
   space-request] for details.  The purpose of Shared CGN Address Space
   is to number CPE (Customer Premise Equipment) interfaces that connect
   to CGN devices.  As explained in [weil-shared-transition-space-
   request], RFC1918 addressing has issues when used in this deployment
   scenario.

Tom Petch


> Tony K
>
>
>
> On 25/03/12 1:04 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Jeffrey Haas<[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sigh. I replied to an item in an mis-sorted grow mailbox without
>>> checking
>>> the date. It looks like this was supported for WG adoption, but I still
>>> don't see a matching draft-grow?
>>
>> we missed the draft 00 deadline, so Tony I think is sending (or has
>> sent?) one in anyway and it out to pop out the sausage manufacture
>> when the floodgates open.
>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 04:37:15PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Tony,
>>>>
>>>> Note, I'm not speaking for the chairs or the ADs.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 10:48:10AM +1000, Anthony Kirkham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd appreciate any advice on how I might progress this draft. I'm
>>>>> reasonably happy with it now, but unsure how to take it the next
>>>>> step. I'd greatly appreciate any guidance.
>>>>
>>>> Two paths are:
>>>> - Keep it as an individual submission and find an AD to sponsor the
>>>> appropriate IESG review, etc:
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-docs.html
>>>> - Get the GROW chairs to do some of this work for you by requesting
>>>> adoption
>>>> of the draft as a GROW WG document. Glancing at the *very stale*
>>>> charter,
>>>> it's in scope for the WG. IMO, given the amount of comment the draft
>>>> has
>>>> received to date, perhaps it should even just go through WGLC.
>>>>
>>>> -- Jeff
>>>>
>>>> P.S. to the GROW chairs - it's probably time for a recharter. And I
>>>> thought
>>>> the BFD milestones were stale! :-)
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> GROW mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GROW mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GROW mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow