Re: I-D ACTION:draft-huston-hd-metric-01.txt

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> Are you of the opinion that we should take this, and perhaps Thomas'  
> draft, up as a v6ops draft?

FWIW, I think the 3177bis document is more appropriate as an IPv6 WG
document than a v6ops one. In particular, a major goal of the document
is to document what _technical_ and _architectural_ relate to a
boundary of /56 vs. /48. (And it is my expectation that the answer is
that there are none).

That doesn't mean that v6ops shouldn't review and provide input; I
encourage them to do so.

If there are _operational_ issues of having end sites obtain a /56
rather than a /48, that would be good to hear about. I suppose there
could be some, but again I can't think right off of any major ones.

> (I would question whether free advice on address allocation policy is  
> actually an IPv6 WG topic as much as an operational topic anyway, and  
> certainly comments on the HD ratio is an operational topic)

Right. Comments on HD ratio might well be more appropriate for v6ops
than IPv6. But I'm not sure right off that Geoff's document should be
a v6ops WG document. It clearly needs review from multiple parties,
including v6ops & (say) the IAB. But ultimately its likely target is
informational, rather than BCP. Also,  its _real_ target/consituancy
is the RIR community. And operational issues about address policy are
expected to be discussed there already. 

Thomas