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

[Jon Mitchell <[e-mail]>]

Seems a reasonable change...

Jon

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 04:16:53PM -0500, Brian Dickson wrote:
> Given that 1930 has defined Private Use, maybe instances of either of the
> two lower-case terms ("private use" or "local") could be replaced with
> mixed-case "Private Use"?
> 
> It is not as aesthetically pleasing, but it removes ambiguity, IMHO, as
> most folks are (I hope) familiar enough with Defined Terms having Special
> Meaning. :-)
> 
> Just my $0.02.
> 
> Brian
> 
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Jon Mitchell <[e-mail]>wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:08:06AM -0600, David Farmer wrote:
> > > Thanks for the excellent reference.
> > >
> > > With that, I think keeping the current title and using the term
> > > "private use" in most of instances is appropriate.  However, I'd
> > > would like to suggest the phrase "local or private use" be used in
> > > the first sentence of the abstract and introduction sections,
> > > keeping "private use" only elsewhere.  And, I think it would be
> > > great if you could add the reference below in the first sentence of
> > > the introduction as well.
> >
> > I think the use of "local" has a less exact definition (local to what)
> > and don't feel this adds significant value to the draft.  Further, I
> > think the motivation paragraph saying this is for a single organization
> > addresses the scope that private ASNs are meant to have already (as well
> > as many of the concerns expressed about people using this for ISP
> > customers which I'm not sure could be called the same organization by
> > any definition as the entity allocating the ASNs).  All other parts of
> > the draft appear to use the term "private use" consistently.
> >
> > >
> > > Pulling something out of my other message, I think adding "by
> > > replacing Section 10 in its entirety." to the end of the abstract
> > > clarifies how this draft intends to updates RFC 1930.
> >
> > I think this adds clarity on what parts of RFC 1930 this impacts and am
> > willing to make this change to the abstract.  I don't think this
> > represents an actual content change to the draft however...
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> >