Re: [Int-area] Review of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-05

[Peter Koch <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:47:08AM -0700, Tony Li wrote:

> 4) The draft seems to shy away from making clear replacement recommendations.  While it recommends that policy take certain points into consideration, this seems like mere rhetoric and lacking in any substance.  I strongly recommend that the draft make real recommendations and very clearly call those out.  If nothing else, the draft needs to clearly and explicitly vacate the previous /48 recommendation.  This seems to be done in the Introduction, which seems somewhat odd.

+1;

Also, the draft isn't too clear about its target audience which could be
either LIRs or the RIRs' respective communities/policy making bodies. That
said, it isn't clear to me why the draft aims at BCP status.  Also, it makes
enough references to RFC 3177 to suggest that one has to read RFC3177 for
the full experience. That again would elevate RFC3177 to a normative
reference.  Or in other words: the draft isn't a standalone replacement
document but instead an addendum that revokes the recommendation of RFC3177
withaout a replacement (cf. quote above).  Maybe RFC3177 should just be
re-classified as Historic with this draft being the explanatory statement.

-Peter