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

[Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>]

Hi Thomas,
	I guess Erik is still in flight, so I'll answer.

On Tuesday, April 15, 2003, at 03:58 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:

> 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...
I tried to keep the RIR role with:

"The TLA/NLA scheme has been replaced by a coordinated allocation
policy parallel to that in use for allocation of unicast IPv4 
addresses."

It's probably not any better.   I'm trying to avoid the ugly bug of 
ICANN's
role in developing and coordinating RIR allocation policies.   See
the RIR's recent communique to the GAC on their role for a polite
version of the dancing going on here.  Frankly, if we can avoid 
mentioning
any bodies that communicate by communique in our documents
all the better for us.

But if we can't, we can't.
							Ted



> > 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