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

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

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?

-- 
================================================
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
================================================