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

[Jakob Heitz <[e-mail]>]

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?
> 
> Section 10 of RFC 1930 is actually titled "Reserved AS
> Numbers" and only
> uses the word "private" when describe their use, it says;
> 
>     The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the
>     following block of AS numbers for private use (not to be
>     advertised on the global Internet):
> 
>                             64512 through 65535
> 
> Just like we are clarifying the end point of the original range, as
> 65534 inclusive; I would like to suggest clarifying their
> use, by taking
> a cue from RFC 4193 and more accurately use the term "local"
> instead of
> "private" when describing their use.  The definition of  "private"
> doesn't seem completely accurate, "pertaining to or affecting a
> particular person or a small group of persons; individual; personal;"
> works, but "confined to or intended only for the persons immediately
> concerned; confidential;" seems problematic, and we seem wholly
> incapable of keeping them private anyway.  Where as, local,
> "pertaining to or affecting a particular part or particular parts, as
> of 
> a physical
> system or organism;" or "pertaining to, characteristic of, or
> restricted to a particular place or particular places" seem much more
> accurate, and
> has no connotations of confidentiality or security.
> 
> Bedsides a general search and replace of "private"
> substituting "local"
> in the text and title, I would like to suggest a singe sentence
> paragraph be added at the beginning of Section 2;
> 
> "Local use ASNs are used by or within a single technical
> administration or among multiple technical administrations by explicit
> agreement only."
> 
> This simply restates the intended use of theses ASNs, using updated
> terminology, that should be less overloaded and misunderstood.  This
> seems completely compatible with the original intent of section 10 of
> RFC 1930 and the operational guidance provided in Section 3
> of this draft.
> 
> Additionally, I would like to suggest the following changes to the
> abstract; 
> 
> "This document describes the reservation of Autonomous System numbers
> (ASNs) that are for local use only and should not be
> advertised to the
> Internet, sometimes known as private use ASNs.  This document enlarges
> the total space available for local use ASNs by documenting the
> reservation of a second, larger range and updates RFC 1930 by
> replacing Section 10 in its entirety."
> 
> The intent is to have this be the sole remaining use of the term
> "private" proving an explicit link to section 10 of RFC 1930.  But,
> also clarifying how this draft updates RFC 1930, by replacing Section
> 10, clarifying the terminology and the end point of the original
> range. 
> 
> What do you think?



-- 
Jakob Heitz.