Pete Resnick wrote: > I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. There was some > objection at the beginning of this thread by Wes George, Noel > Chiappa, and Brian Carpenter. I agreed that the document > could be misunderstood as encouraging the use of the space as > 1918 space and proposed some replacement text. There seemed > to be some agreement around that text. Are you now objecting > to that replacement text and want -14 published as is? Do you > think the document should say that the new allocation can be > used as 1918 space? If so, please explain.
On the first hand, I do support draft-weil. I think I understand the use cases enough to see that it *is* required, especially for large MSO's, and potentially larger enterprises. On the other hand, I can see the confusion regarding "using RFC-1918 space *for this purpose*" vs "use this space as *additional RFC-1918*. The former just doesn't work due to unmanaged overlap. The latter *seems* like it should work, but if you play it out until the first vendor starts releasing equipment that uses it, you've now joined the first-case scenerio. On the gripping hand, I hate the back-and-forth quibbling over the tiniest motes, hoping that the delays will just make the problem disappear... So yes, lets please move this draft forward, with the text cleaning stating that it NOT be used as RFC-1918 space. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
