Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice

SM <> Fri, 30 November 2012 03:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E626121F8472 for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:36:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.742
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Z7jH5q41kJN for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:35:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C2F21F843E for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:35:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAU3Zrwa024703 for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:35:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1354246559; bh=iSrwgjA5D8fM6/dlcDCZPgO0HIzex6wc5seNQursBAQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=FYPrNEnhPMrOHsY4SzVes4WeUqw2tppHuxQtyL0bSTe4/7L63cf4ExcjWLNJTlRT+ 7ExoPQRJM1a0oQah3cYzMhrbhw/yXuX4SBAxUvB5/2KfD8QS2J8+Pghp4WSAiX9SON eWXhBLfD7nvsxMxzw13Iy3XXmzodaToN8ZKCmuxA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1354246559;; bh=iSrwgjA5D8fM6/dlcDCZPgO0HIzex6wc5seNQursBAQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=OMzVPKuRR/JzcDd3qe/oV1nR4uzvL9r42JJHSFUhi1IlUi+9+B3ygjKC+Twwlpg24 4DmIE3iLJQnqLiNcQUZMV0lUS0BnrDm1O7l+9MpuFeSdqNSa/4gcQLpnmR72V9z4CH EE3JzvZZ7IGSBOQ01jJAdVea4cqNU+25g3RLA/yA=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:22:46 -0800
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 03:36:01 -0000

At 12:55 29-11-2012, The IESG wrote:

>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>the following document:
>- 'Special-Purpose Address Registries'
>   <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> as Best Current Practice
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> mailing lists by 2013-01-02. Exceptionally, comments may be

 From the Abstract:

   "This memo updates RFC 5736 and RFC 4773, which define the current
    structure of the IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries.
    It also obsoletes RFC 5735 and RFC 5156 which document special-
    purpose address blocks that are not currently, but will in the
    future, be recorded in the IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address

BCP 153 is about Special Use IPv4 addresses.  This intended BCP will 
create a mishmash as the draft covers both IPv4 and IPv6.  I suggest 
handling the IP versions in two separate drafts.

RFC 5375 is being obsoleted by this draft.  RFC 6598 updates RFC 
5375.  Could someone explain that to me (see and the 
relevant discussion for details)?

The following text is from RFC 3330 which was written by the Internet 
Assigned Numbers Authority:

   "Throughout its entire history, the Internet has employed a central
    Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) responsible for the
    allocation and assignment of various identifiers needed for the
    operation of the Internet [RFC1174].  In the case of the IPv4 address
    space, the IANA allocates parts of the address space to Regional
    Internet Registries according to their established needs.  These
    Regional Internet Registries are responsible for the assignment of
    IPv4 addresses to operators and users of the Internet within their

    [paragraph omitted]

    On an ongoing basis, the IANA has been designated by the IETF to make
    assignments in support of the Internet Standards Process [RFC2860].
    Section 4 of this document describes that assignment process."

The text was also present in RFC 5735.  I unfortunately have to 
object to the disappearance of that text.

RFC 5736 provides direction to IANA concerning the creation and 
management of the IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry.   The 
information in RFC 5375 is not obsolete.

 From the IANA Considerations Section:

   'IANA will update the aforementioned registries as requested in the
    "IANA Considerations" section of an IESG-reviewed document.  The "
    IANA Considerations" section must include all of the information
    specified in Section 2.1 of this document.'

RFC 5735 mentions that:

   "Among other things, [RFC2860] requires that protocol parameters be
    assigned according to the criteria and procedures specified in
    RFCs, including Proposed, Draft, and full Internet Standards and
    Best Current Practice documents, and any other RFC that calls for
    IANA assignment."

This draft changes it.