Re: I-D ACTION:draft-blanchet-v6ops-routing-guidelines-00.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> > Many folks don't see a problem w/ putting /48 junk etc. in the routing 
> > tables, others do.  This doc would/could then become a political 
> > battleground in the v6 operations community..
>
> Why don't publish what is agreeable as a minimum and then revise it when more 
> experience/more concensus/other tools/... is in.

You mean, after the routing table has already been irreversibly 
polluted with junk, come back and review our past recommendations?

Sorry, I don't see how that could fly.  If we don't recommend (or at 
least describe the tradeoffs of) filtering at the allocation 
boundaries, we'd better not produce a document at all because the 
existance of such a document would be interpreted as the IETF's 
go-ahead for putting the junk in the routing tables.

> >  - the uppercase keywords are inappropriate and should be removed
>
> you meant because it is not a protocol?

Yes, and because this is not really an area where the IETF can make 
strict requirements like "must"..

> >  - the doc should probably make RFC2772 historic
>
> I thought about that and I agree. I'm not sure when/how to put it. Include in 
> the document I guess?

Yes, and if you're using XML2RFC, do something like:

<rfc ipr="full3978" category="info" 
docName="draft-blanchet-v6ops-routing-guidelines-01.txt" 
obsoletes="2772">

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