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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-08-20 09:30, Peter Koch wrote:
...
> o draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space-01.txt would have to be elevated 
>   to a normative reference, with all consequences

I don't think this is really required; it is after all an
explanatory document. However, I do think that *if* draft-weil-
is to be published, draft-bdgks needs to be published
simultaneously. Therefore, I think that synchronised Last Calls
are needed.

I have previously argued against draft-weil on the OPSAWG list
and lost, so I will not repeat that argument here. However, if
it is to proceed, then some of my WGLC comments have not yet
been fixed:

>> At the very minimum, if draft-weil is to proceed, it should describe the
>> phase-out plan for the proposed prefix (i.e. the phase-out plan for CGN
>> deployment). One approach to that is documented in RFC 6264.

The authors didn't agree with that comment, but since this is
essentially an operational matter, I think they are wrong. If
the IETF sticks its nose into RIR matters in this way (as the
IAB has concluded that we should*), then we should do a complete
job.

>> It is strange that draft-weil doesn't reference RFC 6319 and RFC 6269.

In other words, draft-weil doesn't recognise the
counter-arguments. That seems wrong to me.

   Brian Carpenter

*
http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2011-2/response-to-arins-request-for-guidance-regarding-draft-policy-arin-2011-5/