Re: [Fwd: [Rir-ietf] Recent Request for v6 Space]

["James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

Fine.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Leslie Daigle" <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
To: "Geoff Huston" <gih@telstra.net>
Cc: <iab@ietf.org>; <iesg@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Rir-ietf] Recent Request for v6 Space]


> 
> Geoff,
> 
> How about this:
> 
> "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.
> 
> We noted that the document in question has an "IANA Considerations"
> section that details a proposed allocation.  Should this document
> complete its path through the IETF process, we believe it would
> be appropriate for the IETF to use the IANA considerations
> process for the IETF to set up the allocation, as opposed to
> having the document editors request the allocation directly.
> 
> Leslie." 
> 
> 
> Geoff Huston wrote:
> > Leslie,
> > 
> > Could you add a reference to the fact that the draft has an
> > IANA considerations sections in it - i..e. if it ever made its
> > way through the IETF process in its current form, the draft's
> > author(s) see that this would be an IANA allocation rather
> > than an RIR allocation.
> > 
> > Geoff
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > At 06:17 PM 13/06/2003 -0400, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> > 
> >> 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
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Reality:
>      Yours to discover."
>                                 -- ThinkingCat
> Leslie Daigle
> leslie@thinkingcat.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
>