Thanks! I have cleared. Jari
On Jan 22, 2014, at 11:18 PM, Victor Kuarsingh <[email protected]> wrote: > Jari, > > I just responded to the gen-art list and Martin on his comments. > > I have made a number of changes that address his comments and have used much > of his text. ( I will be sending the Benoit and the rest of the IESG a full > summary of changes and new version posting tonight). > > This includes the changes to section 6 as prescribed. > > 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
