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

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Thu, 29 November 2012 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@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 5BB2821F8B27 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:45:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.498, BAYES_00=-2.599, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, 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 fi5kzKckjnbp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:45:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E64621F8AB6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:45:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp148.potaroo.net (eth143.act.adsl.internode.on.net [203.16.208.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524C1B6745; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:45:34 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <m24nk82g95.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:45:32 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CDE0AD71-206A-4447-8C9D-09ADF616A00E@apnic.net>
References: <20121129205534.8983.43593.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7C5BEF8A-70E1-4E96-BC5C-7D2D43E09A58@apnic.net> <m24nk82g95.wl%randy@psg.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: ietf@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, 29 Nov 2012 22:45:37 -0000

On 30/11/2012, at 9:31 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

> hi geoff,
> 
> i get your point.  but it sure is convenient to find everything in one
> place.  can your issues be addressed by adding an attribute(s) to the
> entries?


Convenience vs maning a semantic distinction overt.

Yes, it is possible to add an attribute to a common registry.

On the other hand it is possible to realign what entries go in which registry according to:

- "reservations" to be in the "main" registry, using a working definition of a "reservation" as something that all implementations of the protocol have to honour.

- all other IANA special purpose address assignments to be placed in this special purpose registry (including, for example RFC1918 space, 6to4 relays, etc), and the RFC to document the process of special purpose assignment.


Geoff