I'm ok with the document to be sent to the IESG. Regards, Jordi
----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret Wasserman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 4:43 PM Subject: Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "A Flexible Method for Managing the Assignment of Bytes of an IPv6 Address Block" > > Hi All, > > During the last call period for "A Flexible Method for > Managing the Assignment of Bytes of an IPv6 Address > Block", there was only one comment (attached). The > comment did not raise any specific technical issues with > the document, but it did question its usefulness. > > As I am sure many of you know, documents should only be > forwarded to the IESG for approval when there is a consensus > of the WG that the document is both technically sound and > useful. One ambivalent comment is not sufficient input to > demonstrate WG consensus for publishing this document. > > So, if there are people in the WG who do believe that this > document is both technically sound and useful and should be > sent to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC, > could you please speak up? > > You can find the latest version of the document at: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ipaddressassign-06.txt > > Thanks, > Margaret > > > > >To: Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "A Flexible Method for Managing the > > Assignment of Bytes of an IPv6 Address Block" > > > > > >On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > > This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the > > > following document as an Informational RFC: > > > > > > Title : A Flexible Method for Managing the Assignment of > > > Bits of an IPv6 Address Block > > > Author(s) : M. Blanchet > > > Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-ipaddressassign-06.txt > > > Pages : 8 > > > Date : 2003-1-6 > > > > > >I don't have problems with this, though I'm not sure how useful this is > >for most (but for some, certainly). > > > > > >A point I've raised in the past is, most operators are not really > >interested in optimizing the address assignments on a bit level (provided > >that the number of customers is not so high it would be required). > >Rather, here we do so with nibbles. Those are easier to calculate in the > >head and work better with reverse DNS delegations too. > > > > > >But I'm not sure whether this kind of "coarser approach for flexible > >assignment" calls for some text or not. A mention at most, I think. > >What do others feel? > > > > > >-- > >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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ********************************* Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit 12-14 May 2003 - Pre-register at: http://www.ipv6-es.com Interested in participating or sponsoring ? Contact us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
