---- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony Kirkham" <tkirk...@cisco.com> To: <grow@ietf.org>; <grow-cha...@tools.ietf.org> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:27 AM Subject: [GROW] Final feedback please - kirkham-private-ip-sp-cores
All, I have just posted a new draft. There has only been one minor modification. Filename: draft-kirkham-private-ip-sp-cores Revision: 06 Title: Issues with Private IP Addressing in the Internet Creation date: 2011-09-09 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 13 I believe this is ready for publication. Any advice on the next step would be appreciated. <tp> Anthony I notice that you include the grow chairs on your To: list but have not seen any reply on-list from them. The simplest way forward is for the chairs to propose, and for the WG to support, the adoption of the I-D as a WG I-D, which can then be last-called and submitted to the IESG for consideration. A harder route is to persuade an AD to take on the task of guiding the I-D through the IESG and into publication, harder because ADs are busy, overloaded even, and are likely to prefer the former route as the load is then shared with WG Chairs and WG. I would like to see this published and wish it already were, given the current discussions over the weil and bdqks drafts on OPSAWG. At the same time, I think it should be polished a little more before submission. I think that the coverage is fine, but find myself wishing the style was more robust - I was taught that technical writing avoids adverbs, and here I find them making the text more uncertain than I think it should be; also I find myself querying some of the details. For example, there are AS numbers which should be used as examples in documentation such as this. I realise that many manufacturers' manuals do not do this, but we should know better:-) Likewise, the reference to RFC1918 addresses; is that the only type used, or do some use eg 240/8 addresses (yes, I know about squatting)? Leakage; part of the weil/bdqks discussion is around the fact that addresses always leak, no matter how good your filtering on the periphery. I would like to see that called out (I know that RFC1918 addresses end up in the global tables, I have not seen an analysis of how they got there, but this seems a good candidate). The references need some work; not sure what to do about the nanog reference - probably take it out into a paragraph somewhere, [RFC3021] is in the text but not at the end, and I would like a reference for PMTUD, if not for ICMP and perhaps traceroute. Tom Petch </tp> Regards Tony K -- *Anthony Kirkham* *Solution Architect ***World Wide Security Service Practice ** tkirk...@cisco.com <mailto:tkirk...@cisco.com> Phone: *+61 (0)7 3238 8203* Mobile: *+61 (0)401 890 494* CISSP, CCIE# - 1378 ** Level 12, 300 Adelaide Street Brisbane, Qld, 4000 Australia Cisco home page <http://www.cisco.com/global/AU/> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All, I have just posted a new draft. There has only been one minor modification. Filename: draft-kirkham-private-ip-sp-cores Revision: 06 Title: Issues with Private IP Addressing in the Internet Creation date: 2011-09-09 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 13I believe this is ready for publication. Any advice on the next step would be appreciated. Regards Tony K -- Anthony Kirkham Solution Architect World Wide Security Service Practice tkirk...@cisco.com Phone: +61 (0)7 3238 8203 Mobile: +61 (0)401 890 494 CISSP, CCIE# - 1378 Level 12, 300 Adelaide Street Brisbane, Qld, 4000 Australia Cisco home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > GROW@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow > _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
