Re: [v6ops] Protocol Action: 'Deprecating Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers' to Best Current Practice (draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-11.txt)

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

>> On Mar 9, 2015, at 21:28, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 10/03/2015 10:01, David Farmer wrote:
>>> On 3/9/15 11:33 , The IESG wrote:
>>> The IESG has approved the following document:
>>> - 'Deprecating Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers'
>>>   (draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-11.txt) as Best Current Practice
>> 
>> Good News!
>> 
>> ...
>>> In response to the IANA review:
>>> 
>>> OLD:
>>> 
>>>    Instead, IANA is requested to mark the 192.88.99.0/24
>>>    prefix originally defined by [RFC3068] as "Deprecated (6to4 Relay
>>>    Anycast)", pointing to the present document.
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> 
>>>    Instead, IANA is requested to mark the 192.88.99.0/24
>>>    prefix originally defined by [RFC3068] as "Deprecated (6to4 Relay
>>>    Anycast)", pointing to the present document. The Boolean values
>>>    for the address block 192.88.99.0/24 will all be removed.
>> 
>> What is the rationale for removing the Boolean values?  Wouldn't the current values apply until the prefix is repurposed or
>> removed by future protocol action?
>> 
>> I'm not sure I really care, but I don't understand what is served by removing the current values.  I'm not sure what purpose the
>> Boolean values really serve, but the current values seem the most appropriate until the prefix is permanently removed or
>> repurposed.
> 
> Well, IANA wanted this change. I sympathise because it means they never have
> to revisit this in the future.
> 
>    Brian

Why would IANA have to revisit it?  Why couldn't the Boolean values be left forever for historic reference or at least until it is reassigned or removed by future protocol action, which by definition IANA would have to revisit it anyway.

Also, the IANA review says; "and added a Termination Date upon approval of this draft."  Does than mean the termination date in the IPv4 special-purpose registry will be the publication date of this document?  Is that what we want?  That doesn't seem to jive with the general feel of the rest of the recommendations in the document. In my opinion a Termination Date, two, three, or five years later would be much more in line with the feel of the rest of the document, that is why I brought it up months ago, back around -08.  I let it go thinking there wouldn't be a termination date, I guess my mistake.

My suggestion would be, leave the Boolean values as-is forever, or until reassigned, with a termination date some years after publication of this document, personally I'd pick three years, but anything more that a year out would be just fine.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer                          Email: [e-mail]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota    
2218 University Ave SE         Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: [phone]
===============================================