Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt> (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space) to Informational RFC

[Peter Koch <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 09:10:25AM -0700, The IESG wrote:
> 
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space'
>   <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt> as an Informational
> RFC

I am a bit confused about the exact purpose of this last call and would appreciate
some guidance by the IESG and/or IAB how to read this in context.
It appears the draft is meant to gauge consensus as per the communication
archived at
<http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2011-2/response-to-arins-request-for-guidance-regarding-draft-policy-arin-2011-5/>.

However, all the content and discussion is essentially deferred to
draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space-01.txt, which has a status of "I-D Exists",
is not subject to this Last Call and is, to my surprise, an Informative Reference
in the draft under consideration.

content/nits:

o draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space-01.txt would have to be elevated 
  to a normative reference, with all consequences

o the document should have operational considerations as in RFC 1918,
  regarding the leakage of addresses in IP headers and elsewhere (cf. "AS112")

o the document does not discuss the risk of the new address space being
  absorbed as a simple addition to RFC1918 space

o the Security considerations are non existent, especially given the
  long experience with actual and perceived threats connected to RFC 1918
  address space

o the document would have to change its perspective to as if the address
  range had already been assigned (no more "proposes" language).

o the document ought to expand used acronyms and add references to IETF
  or other documents, e.g., for CGN, CPE, and other terms

o without any judgement re: the "B", this document should aim at BCP status
  since it would have to give (more detailed) instructions what and what
  not to do with the assigned/allocated address.

o RFC 2119 would have to be elevated to a normative reference

o add reference to RFC 6319

Quite frankly, without taking any position on the actual proposal, these
bullet items suggest the draft is not ready for publication.

-Peter