Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-02.txt

["Murphy, Sandra" <[e-mail]>]

I agree that using the standard documentation prefixes would be best, but I was actually pointing to the previous discussion of the use of documentation prefixes.

On 8 Sep, Randy (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg03304.html) said:

>look at rfc 5737 IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation

and on 8 Sep, Terry (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg03305.html) replied:

>From time to time authors choose to use non rfc5737 address blocks as the
>examples can't often be adequately described or remain uniform with the
>documentation prefixes.

I was suggesting that the authors make the argument that the documentation prefixes are insufficient for this draft's purpose *in the draft* to avoid making the same argument as the document progresses.  


--Sandy


________________________________________
From: Geoff Huston [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:37 PM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: sidr wg; Murphy, Sandra
Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-02.txt

On 22/12/2011, at 2:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

>> And why not use the documentation prefix(es) and documentation AS(es)
>> in this draft. rather than 10/8 etc. That's what they are there for.
>
> the draft in $subject uses 10/8.  i think sandy was pointing out that
> the ips and asns in rfc 5737 might be more appropriate.  is the latter
> what you mean by "documentation xxx?"
>
> so what is it you are suggesting?  i suspect you are agreeing with sandy
> but can not parse.  my error, likely, too much good theater and food.
>
> randy


I think the set is RFC5737, RFC3849, and RFC5398.

That is what I am suggesting.

Geoff