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

[Jon Mitchell <[e-mail]>]

Maybe I can assist with the definition... RFC1930 was writen a long time
ago, but clearly in Section 10 it does say these are for private use.
This is reconfirmed by RFC5226 definition of Private Use is what is
being used in the draft, not a common language dictionary entry, here is
the section text:

4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions


   The following are some defined policies, some of which are in use
   today.  These cover a range of typical policies that have been used
   to date to describe the procedure for assigning new values in a
   namespace.  It is not required that documents use these terms; the
   actual requirement is that the instructions to IANA are clear and
   unambiguous.  However, use of these terms is RECOMMENDED where
   possible, since their meaning is widely understood.

      Private Use - For private or local use only, with the type and
            purpose defined by the local site.  No attempt is made to
            prevent multiple sites from using the same value in
            different (and incompatible) ways.  There is no need for
            IANA to review such assignments (since IANA does not record
            them) and assignments are not generally useful for broad
            interoperability.  It is the responsibility of the sites
            making use of the Private Use range to ensure that no
            conflicts occur (within the intended scope of use).

            Examples: Site-specific options in DHCP [DHCP-IANA], Fibre
            Channel Port Type Registry [RFC4044], Exchange Types in the
            IKEv2 header [RFC4306].


On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 08:45:07PM -0600, David Farmer wrote:
> On 12/12/12 20:28 , Jakob Heitz wrote:
> >We all know what a private ASN is. "Local" is an overused word
> >devoid of meaning. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> >
> >On , David Farmer <> wrote:
> >
> >>On 12/12/12 15:07 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Jared Mauch <[e-mail]>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>On Dec 12, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> >>>>
> >>...
> >>>>b) leak "private" space without explicit configurations to enable
> >>>>said action.
> >>>
> >>>'what is private' ?
> >>
> >>This got me thinking, why are we calling them "private" anyway?
> 
> Ok, then you answer Chris' question.  That was my answer.
> 
> I'll only add "private" seems an equally overused word and equally
> devoid of meaning especially in this context.  And, you may not
> think it is broke, but some people on the list seem to think it is
> broken. So, maybe we should fix the brokenness, rather than
> propagating the brokenness.
> 
> -- 
> ================================================
> 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
> ================================================
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr