On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Bob Hinden wrote: > >draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-00.txt > > > >==> how did the first draft suddently jump to a w.g. document? I don't > >recall this question being raised, unless it was years ago (or I've missed > >something). Not that I disagree with (most of) the contents, but some > >parts at least seem to be questionable. > > It's been in the works for a while and is in the current and proposed > charter. The current charter has: > > - Revise IPv6 Aggregatable Unicast Addresses [RFC 2374], removing the > policy aspects that are considered RIR issues. > > Issuing this draft now was a follow up to the IPv6 Address Architecture > being approved as a Draft Standard.
I thought the process pretty much always is a personal submission first, but fine by me :-). >> This document defines the unicast address format for the 2000::/3 >> (001 binary) prefix. The address format defined in this document is >> consistent with RFC1883 "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) >> Specification" >> >>==> s/1883/2460/ > > Thanks. Oh, btw, in the references too. > >3.0 IANA Considerations > > > > The following prefix is reserved for use in documentation and MUST > > NOT be assigned to any operational IPv6 nodes: > > > > 2000:0001::/32 > > > >==> I do not understand why this reservation has been made; I see zero > >technical reason for it -- and it would prevent the use of the full > >2000::/16 for something else. > > See other responses. There has been a request for the reservation of some > IPv6 address space for documentation. Sure. > >I'd rather reserve a documentation prefix somewhere else, and in some > >other, _separate_ internet-draft. > > It seemed to me like a convenient place to do it as this was defining the > 2000::/3 prefix. It could be done elsewhere, but hopefully this draft can > get through the process quickly. Well, if one believes this can be done quickly here, no problem. But I'm not sure it can. I, for one, am very adamantly against reserving 2000:0001::/32. That wastes a complete 2000::/16 (if, for some purposes, a whole /16 or first parts of it are needed). An extremely bad idea, IMO. I'd recommend taking something from 2001, like 2001:0001::/32 or 2001:FFFF::/32. And this kind of "which one is the right block to reserve" discussions could delay the other parts of the draft, which was my main motivation for keeping it outside of this one. > >5.0 References > > > >==> split the references. > > Why? Most are normative or very static. Because otherwise the draft will get bounced back when the AD checks for ID-nits, and because it's required before it can get to the RFC editor.. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
