The IAB discussed this on their monthly conference call this
week.
Our thought is that an appropriate reply is to say that
we don't believe any allocation should be made based on
an Internet-Draft -- it is incomplete IETF work. And stop there.
Note that the obvious implication is that the authors
could re-publish the same words in pdf on their own website.
But, it would then be up to ARIN (or APNIC or RIPE) to determine
whether they have a policy for such allocations.
To that end, a draft reply (my composition in the light of
the IAB discussion -- no one else on the IAB has had the opportunity
to comment on this yet):
"Ray,
The IAB has reviewed the situation presented in your note,
and we agree that it is inappropriate to make an allocation
based on an Internet-Draft that has not been approved for
publication within the IETF. Such an action would constitute
an end-run around IETF process and the IETF-RIR working relationship.
Leslie."
Thoughts?
Leslie.
Randy Bush wrote:
I think Thomas & Erik will have particular things to say
here (as ngtrans was in their Area)
well, not exactly, though i would gladly would have given it to
them and i think i even tried a couple of times.
the issue here is
o christian has done a lot of work improving this
o but the current/recent incarnation has had no real review
o and this is because the wg, v6ops, is doing scenarios before
mechanisms
o i.e., at this time it would be an end-run around an active
wg's work
randy
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
Yours to discover."
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------