Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

David:

On the inbound "MAY", I'm not sure I know which text in section 3 you are
indicating.  Rather than guess at the text you are implying, would you
please just send the exact text from the latest draft. 

Thank you, 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farmer [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:52 PM
To: Jon Mitchell
Cc: Susan Hares; [e-mail]; David Farmer
Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00

On 12/20/12 16:38 , Jon Mitchell wrote:
>
> I'm comfortable making the change to a capital MUST for this sentence 
> and adding the appropriate reference to RFC 2119 as necessary.  I'm 
> just not comfortable telling operators how to perform that action as 
> there are a number of options to do so, which was my point to David 
> (and he seemed to be ok with).  I will make the changes as necessary 
> to the abstract where this statement exists as well.

If you go to a capital MUST on the outbound to the global Internet then I
fine with not say everyone else MAY disregard inbound from the global
Internet.  However, if that MUST was changed to SHOULD then I would would
want an everyone else MAY disregard inbound from the global Internet.

> As for BCP versus info, I leave that up to the chairs, but this does 
> not obsolete or otherwise change text in RFC 1930 outside of the IANA 
> considerations section (RFC 1930 is primarily about justification for 
> an ASN).  There is no "practice" being advocated by the draft to be 
> best or current, outside of the practice of not sending Private Use 
> ASNs to the Internet.

BCP is what I think it should be.

Thanks


--
================================================
David Farmer               Email: [e-mail]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================