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 0752B21F864E; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:17:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.521 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156] 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 sSccLwHIBhqb; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D0E21F863C; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail62-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.231) by CH1EHSOBE012.bigfish.com (10.43.70.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:18:05 +0000 Received: from mail62-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail62-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C81A320400; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:18:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -26 X-BigFish: VS-26(zz9371I542Mzz1202hzz1033IL8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah107ah) Received-SPF: pass (mail62-ch1: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=huitema@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ; Received: from mail62-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail62-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 134229348424128_17155; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:18:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS023.bigfish.com (snatpool2.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.233]) by mail62-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F414A0047; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:18:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by CH1EHSMHS023.bigfish.com (10.43.70.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:18:04 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.83]) by TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.61]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:18:02 +0000 From: Christian Huitema To: Randy Bush , IETF Disgust , The IESG Subject: RE: Last Call: (Special Use IPv4 Addresses) to Best Current Practice Thread-Topic: Last Call: (Special Use IPv4 Addresses) to Best Current Practice Thread-Index: AQHNYU5CCMd3KY4dTEeMQABkPC5umpcpKB9Q Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:18:02 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20120712224629.14063.15257.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.37] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com 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: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:17:27 -0000 Very useful document, certainly worth publishing. It is one of those docume= nts that needs frequent updates. RFC 6052, IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators, makes reference to a pr= edecessor of this document, stating in section 3.1 that "The Well-Known Pre= fix 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 im= plementers will automatically upgrade their code to reference the new versi= on. -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ran= dy Bush Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 4:21 PM To: IETF Disgust; The IESG Subject: Re: Last Call: (Special Us= e IPv4 Addresses) to Best Current Practice > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to=20 > consider the following document: > - 'Special Use IPv4 Addresses' > as Best Current Practice read and support randy