If we come back to the original intent of this draft. The private-ip draft was fundamentally intended to provide some useful information on a topic, which had not previously been documented. And in my experience, there was a lot of confusion in relation to the subject across many ISPs. It was certainly not designed to make recommendations as to best practice (even though I have my own views on that). I have worded the document to avoid any suggestion of good or bad practice, just documenting the effects.
I would not like to see it delayed by getting caught up in these discussions. It should certainly not prevent any of these other discussions going forward.
That's my 0.02c, and again thanks for all the feedback and discussion. Tony K On 18/05/12 2:11 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
Folks, Thanks for introducing this document! I would like to bring the authors' attention to the following documents that are working in OPSEC: - draft-behringer-lla-only - draft-baker-opsec-passive-ip-address To some extent, draft-grow and draft-behringer are debating with one another. While draft-baker is not directly involved in the debate, it is not uninvolved, either. It is a shame that the three documents are being considered in different WGs. For the purpose of discussing these three documents, I think that a little cross-posting is acceptable. -------------------------- Ron Bonica vcard: www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
-- _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
