Return-Path: 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 5A6DA21F85D7; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 08:43:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.443 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lWP8DZKmRF26; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 08:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DEEA21F852B; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 08:43:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.242.9.248] (m2d0f36d0.tmodns.net [208.54.15.45]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CA4C1B405FA; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:44:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [IETF] Last Call: (Special Use IPv4 Addresses) to Best Current Practice Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:18:54 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8D602BA3-CF79-4A3B-BDAD-3F0B6461075F@kumari.net> References: <20120712224629.14063.15257.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Christian Huitema X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: The IESG , IETF Disgust X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF-Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:43:45 -0000 On Jul 14, 2012, at 3:18 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: > Very useful document, certainly worth publishing. +1 > It is one of those documents that needs frequent updates. >=20 +1 > RFC 6052, IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators, makes reference to = a predecessor of this document, stating in section 3.1 that "The = Well-Known Prefix MUST NOT be used to represent non-global IPv4 = addresses, such as those defined in [RFC1918] or listed in Section 3 of = [RFC5735]." I assume that implementers will automatically upgrade their = code to reference the new version. >=20 -1 -- I would not assume any such thing. I *might* guess that = implementors will include the new version in new / updated code, but the = not necessarily the "automatically" bit :-P W > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Randy Bush > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 4:21 PM > To: IETF Disgust; The IESG > Subject: [IETF] Re: Last Call: = (Special Use IPv4 Addresses) to Best Current Practice >=20 >> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to=20 >> consider the following document: >> - 'Special Use IPv4 Addresses' >> as Best Current Practice >=20 > read and support >=20 > randy >=20 >=20 -- "Working the ICANN process is like being nibbled to death by ducks, it takes forever, it doesn't make sense, and in the end we're still dead = in the water."=20 -- Tom Galvin, VeriSign's vice president for government relations.