On 26/07/2011, at 1:48 PM, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote: > > All, > As a data point, the original draft of -00 really started life as a > straight copy of George's and Geoff's draft. I was looking for a way to > establish a procedure for sending instructions to IANA for new delegations to > AS112 nodes, so they paved the way. That said, I also don't have a problem > with splitting my draft into 2: One with the original set of instructions > and another that could possibly either lead to a 'bis' for 6303 or become > another document in a series of AS112 RFCs - much like RFC 6305 seems to be. > > (I'm more pragmatic in the sense that I'd like to see the instructions go > forward faster than another Informational RFC/bis. :-) ) > > Thanks, > > wfms
I would support this latter approach William: I think we should seek WG adoption of three drafts 1) the michaelson as112-ipv6 draft, aiming for at least one 01 spin to a small set of non-controversial V6 delegations, moving to WGLC and IANA asap. 2) your as112-ipv4-cull draft, but shorn of the operational aspects, likewise rapid movement to WGLC and IANA 3) an AS112 operational draft more in the nature of 6304/5/bis I would like to ask for WG adoption of AS112-IPv6 on that basis. cheers -George _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
