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

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 09:10 19-08-2011, 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
>
>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
>[e-mail] mailing lists by 2011-09-16. Exceptionally, comments may be

Making such an allocation through a document which is not intended 
for the Standards Track is highly unusual.  Last year I raised a 
concern in a non-IETF mailing list about making IPv4 allocations 
using "RFC required" as there will be more economic pressure for 
process end-run as the world gets to the odds and ends of IPv4 
addresses.  I don't see any text that fits under protocol assignment 
(see RFC 2860) in draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.  In 
fact, the Security Considerations section mentions that the "memo 
does not define any protocol".

The draft only mentions an applicability and justification for Shared 
Transition Space and references 
draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space-00.  While the policy fits 
under RIR community processes, it does not fit under allocations made 
for technical specifications.  Publishing this document on the 
grounds that the ARIN wants it is not a good enough reason.  Will 
ARIN be "donating" the /10 IPv4 address space to IANA for it to make 
this allocation?

The draft mentions that:

   "Network equipment manufacturers MUST NOT use the
    assigned block in default or example device configurations."

As the IPv4 address block is not specified in the document, the above 
requirement cannot be followed.  The expectation that the IPv4 
address block will only be used by Infrastructure Providers is 
optimistic.  RFC 5735 covers Special Use IPv4 Addresses.  This 
document should update the BCP.

A proposal similar to this one was discussed in a V6OPS meeting in 
Asia.  If my reading is correct, it did not gain consensus.  The 
proposal gets discussed in North America in
OPSAWG and it gains consensus.  BTW, this draft contains only 220 
lines, including boilerplate and it has five authors.

Regards,
-sm