Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00.txt

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

< vituperation >

> I believe RFC 2050 does (and did) _not_ address "technical
> specifications of addresses", but rather documented (past tense) the
> then "best current practice" of policies associated with the
> operational deployment of those addresses for a short period around
> 1995 or so.

from this ops pov, the danvers meeting was where the ops and the irs met
to agree on the critical issue of sean's ags+s falling over, agree that
we would not filter on shorter than a /19 outside of swamp, and that the
irs would allocate no longer than /19.  that the ir folk then took it
and made a massive layer nine out of it was on your own heads.  the
american idiom is that chickens come home to roost.

> RFC 2050 is outdated and historic and its status should be made to
> reflect that truth.

made your bed, sleep in it.  maybe learn not to do it again?  nope.  the
irs keep on making massive and complex policy.  there were and are
alternatives http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-103

we need bookkeepers.  we get wannabe regulators.  now we have wannabe
regulators who want to write the regulations completely outside of
coordination with the rest of the community.  oh goodie.

randy