Re: [MBONED] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-06.txt

[Pekka Savola <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> We regard this draft as now ready to go to the IESG, and will so announce in 
> session today.
>
> I plan to do this after the close of this week (after Friday). Please 
> consider this as a
> informal "mini-last call" to make sure that all of the issues raised were 
> addressed.

I'm still not very happy about the fact that we haven't defined any 
guidelines for the Designated Expert.  In the absense of such 
guidelines, the expert should by default accept assignments.  I don't 
think that's what we want.

I'm still not very happy about the fact that the document does not 
define a "Local Network Application Block".  A block for assignments 
for those protocols that should not by default be routed on the 
Internet.  Essentially almost all the application requests could go 
there instead of current Ad-hoc blocks (that have an expectation of 
routability).

This would be great for people who need to manage MSDP etc. filters 
for those Norton Ghost etc. -like applications.

If you need a specific suggestion how to go about doing this I'd 
suggest splitting AD-HOC BLOCK I in two, and the upper half 
(224.0.128.0/17) would be designated for Local Applications.

Editorial:

In S 6, it says "Future assignments of blocks of addresses that do not 
fit in the Local or Internetwork block will be made in the Extended 
block."  -- what does "Extended block" refer to?  This block or AD-HOC 
II, or something else?  Reword.

Informative references section now has I-D.ietf-mboned-addrarch but 
that is not referred to anywhere in the text.  It should be cited or 
removed from the references section.



-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings