On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 07:51:14PM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 12:12 PM +1000 6/15/10, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >In message <p06240867c8385b270...@[10.20.30.158]>, Paul Hoffman writes:
> >> At 4:23 PM -0400 6/11/10, Derek Diget wrote:
> >> >Raising hand timidly....
> >>
> >> In this group!? :-)
> >>
> >> >Instead of listing the zones in section 4 (which then will get hard
> >> >coded into implementations), follow section 6 and register the zones in
> >> >the new/to-be-created IANA assignment registry. This will force
> >> >implementations to go look at the assignment registry and maybe more
> >> >aware of the dynamic nature of some of these zones. As the draft is
> >> >now, some implementors probably will stop reading after section 5. :(
> >>
> >> Good call. +1
> >
> >The zone listed are intended to be stable enough in usage that they
> >can be frozen in code. Zones added to the registry should be of a
> >similar level of stability. It would be a very rare event for a
> >zone to be removed from the registry and it would take decades, if
> >ever, that the zone would be untainted.
>
> Probably true, but not relevant to the discussion. The idea is to force
> implementers to look at the registry so that they see *future* additions to
> it, even if they get there from reading this RFC-to-be.
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
I'll note in passing that the "Martian" prefix list took less than 30
days
to be declared "valid to use prefixes" and it has taken decades to
eradicate
them as "Martians" (by killing off code which chose to freeze them
because of the
stability of classful addressing)... there are still vestigages of
this cruft
around. I can not and do not share Marks naive presumptions about the
stability
of prefix use. Guess I've been burned by that assumption twice - don't
want to
be bit by it a third time.
--bill
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
