I read Peter Koch's comments archived at http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg56447.html as a strong hint that this document, draft-iana-rfc3330bis-06, should be published as a BCP, and that the normative language needs to be strengthened forther, with a MUST NOT for all private/documentation/testing addresses regarding use and forwarding in the public Internet. I heartfully support this approach -- I did not understand why that original intent had been changed during the update to the -05 version; IIRC, in my previous reviews of the document I had not recommended that change.
And indeed, if this document is going to become a BCP, the history (Section 3) can (and should) be moved into an appendix. However, splitting off another tiny document solely for documenting a single new assignment seems to be overstressing of the resources of the IESG and the RFC publication process. Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: [email protected] | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
