Jari/Martin, With respect to section 6, I agree we can remove the odd text and I will follow Martin's suggestion. The inclusion of that text was a bit historical as the document was actual first drafted before RFC6598.
I would agree that (as this point) that text, as I have in the document, servers little value - so it will be removed. I will also respond to Martins last email and confirm some of the editorial changes. Jari, Please let me know if I need if you need to see a new draft spun before approvals or if confirmation of the changes is sufficient (I am ok with either). I was trying to capture all final adjustments for a -05 version before publishing. regards, Victor K On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jari Arkko <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for your detailed review, Martin! > > And thank you Victor for a very useful document! > > Much of the discussion in this thread is important but also partly > editorial. I'll leave it to sort out between yourselves. > > However, I do think Section 6 last sentence: > > Should a provide choose to use non-assigned IP address space within > their translation realms, then considerations may apply. > > gives an odd impression. We already have shared address space (as the > document notes elsewhere), so it is not clear to me what the above might > entail, particularly when (a) regular address space assignments go through > the RIR system not IANA (b) use of unassigned address space is probably not > something that we want to recommend and (c) if we need to do something > beyond the existing shared address space allocation, then that probably > deserves its own document. > > I can see that Victor you've already agreed to make a change wrt Section > 6. I just wanted to check that this is indeed the plan, so that we can move > on to approving the document :-) > > Jari > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
