Re: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC

George Michaelson <ggm+ietf@apnic.net> Thu, 15 November 2012 10:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm+ietf@apnic.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC85621F8577; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:50:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J2S1K9qEaXEf; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 423EA21F8508; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:50:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:13:3966:7593:b81e:73fc] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:13:3966:7593:b81e:73fc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D24EB68D4; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:50:07 +1000 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
From: George Michaelson <ggm+ietf@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAKFn1SFy2+hXJLVtEpkdXfNuXA31ybmYnBFFPXj-73kb3tD+yw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:50:03 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1C49DB9E-6BD3-4A8A-8B19-2D5A8F4DAC94@apnic.net>
References: <20121113144545.12836.71935.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKFn1SFy2+hXJLVtEpkdXfNuXA31ybmYnBFFPXj-73kb3tD+yw@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: lisp@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:50:12 -0000

I think this document isn't ready for IETF last call.

I think the context of an experimental assignment which heads to
distributing IPv6 addresses to end-entities, even if the experiment
is not intended to be globally routable, poses questions about how
the address management function is going to work. Can the working
group be asked to discuss how this is meant to be interpreted in
the light of RFC2050 based processes? It might avoid future pain
if its clear how the IAB and the RIR understand these addresses and
their management.

The experiment has all the attributes of a general, wide-ranging
address distribution and management activity. I haven't seen any
substantive discussion of this in the WG mailing lists, and I'm
worried this hasn't been documented, or understood.

cheers

-George