Joe,
It doesn't seem appropriate to recommend behavior other than the current
until these addresses are actually allocated. They remain "reserved for
future use" until actually used, not before.
This draft is odd in that it is recommending an action (treat as
unicast) without actually defining the behavior of that space. "Partly"
defining that behavior isn't, IMO, a useful step forward.
We claim that the space can and should be used as normal unicast space,
just as old Class A, B, or C space. What we don't know is whether it
should be public or private, and we claim that there is no need to
decide that question today because the coding for either is exactly the
same. Is there wording that you think would make this more clear?
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
