Re: 3177-bis

[Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>]

Thomas,

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 05:00:03PM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
> 
> I'd really welcome your feedback on how to make the document
> better. But to be blunt, I am having difficulty extracting the
> substantive content to apply to the document.
> 
> > The fundamental goal of this draft is just misguided.
> 
> As Brian says, please be clear. The goal of this draft is to make
> clear that /48 is not a technical/architecural requirement and that the
> concerns/motivations that led to the original recommendation of /48
> can be met with end site assignments other than "/48 for everyone". If
> you disagree with this, please elaborate.

Thanks for writing this.

Tony's e-mail made me uncomfortable, but I wasn't really sure what to
make of it. Now I understand - his arguments may or may not make
sense, but the IETF is not the appropriate forum for policy
discussions. If Tony's arguments are compelling, then they should be
compelling to the RIR communities as well.

As a side note, making any blanket statements about what the RIRs want
makes as much sense as blanket statements about what the IETF wants,
and for the same reasons.

--
Shane