Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-02.txt

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

Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com> writes:

> I'm concerned about the way in which Section 2.0 discusses the
> role of the RIRs.

In what sense?

> Given the ugliness of the bugs under these rocks,
> I wonder if the best thing might not be to justify the change
> solely based on the technical argument and cut the rest of the text.

But a big reason for the change is that the  TLA approach comes from
the "disconnected from reality, head-in-the-sand" thinking of the IPv6
WG, and moving it to the RIRs, which is where address allocation
policies have been done  historically. Believe me, there are some that
would have been happy for the IETF to have retained this role for IPv6
addresses...

> If I'm totally missing a backstory here, sorry, but this just seemed
> a less-is-more moment,

Many stories buried here...

Erik? I think the words at issue are your words (cut-and-pasted from
an email message as he was beating up the author to make the document
actually explain why we were deprecating the unicast address
format...). I do think section 2 could be made better, but I'm not
sure the proposed words are that much different, and I struggled when
I tried to come up with better wording.

Thomas