% Alain,
%
% The current document does not enforce a business model (earlier versions
% did), but does set technical constraints. Personally I don't think it is
% possible to 'Provide mechanisms that prevent hoarding', so the requirement
% 'without any procedure for de-allocation' creates a problem once hoarding
% has been detected. I do not object to the current document as this specific
% issue will be resolved by an update once the system is in operation and
% practical experience exposes that flaw.
its not that the document "enforces" a business model,
it that it creates "property rights" e.g. owned address
space. this is -NEW- and is an area untrodden by the
IESG/IAB.
% mechanism which solves them if used as directed. As much as some people want
% to, it is not the IETF's job to legislate operational behavior. The language
% in this document is appropriate and it should be published.
Operational behaviour is one thing, creating legal assests
is something else. This is a -VERY- bad idea.
--bill
% Tony
%
% > -----Original Message-----
% > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alain
% > Durand
% > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:22 AM
% > To: Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden
% > Cc: The IESG; Margaret Wasserman; IPv6 Mailing List; Alain Durand; Thomas
% > Narten
% > Subject: Re: Request To Advance : "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"
% >
% > Dears ADs,
% >
% > I found it very unfortunate that the chair decided to request to
% > advance this document
% > without answering two major issues I raised during the last call:
% >
% > - Permanent allocation is equivalent of selling address space, which is
% > very different from
% > the notion of stewardship that are now in place for any IP address
% > allocation today.
% > There are a number of legal questions not answered around this point.
% > More, this is imposing a business model to the entity that will be in
% > charge of the allocations,
% > and I believe that the IETF should refrain from imposing business
% > model.
% >
% > - The document does not contain any wording recommending against the
% > 'all zero' self allocation.
% > It merely say that:
% > "Locally assigned global IDs MUST be generated with a pseudo-random
% > algorithm consistent with [RANDOM].". However, it should be noted
% > that [RANDOM]
% > or RFC1750 does not contain any mandate, just provide ideas on how
% > to do things.
% > An 'all zero' self allocation would create the prefix FD00::/48 and
% > will be very tempting
% > to use by many.
% > This working group just spend more than a year to deprecate the site
% > local
% > fec0::/10 prefixes, just to reinvent it here.
% >
% > As the request to advance this document came from the Ipv6 wg chairs,
% > representing the wg,
% > it is my opinion that the IPv6 Working Groug has made an incorrect
% > technical choice which
% > places the quality and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s)
% > in significant
% > jeopardy.
% >
% > As the request to advance this document has already been sent to you,
% > ADs,
% > this is my appeal to you to reject it and send it back to the working
% > group.
% >
% > - Alain.
% >
% >
% >
% >
% >
% > On Feb 18, 2004, at 5:22 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
% >
% > > Margaret & Thomas,
% > > On behalf of the IPv6 working group, the chairs request the
% > > advancement of:
% > >
% > > Title : Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
% > > Author(s) : R. Hinden, B. Haberman
% > > Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt
% > > Pages : 16
% > > Date : 2004-2-13
% > >
% > > as a Proposed Standard. The -02 version completed working group last
% > > call on 02/02/2004. This version addresses issues raised during the
% > > last call period.
% > >
% > > Regards,
% > > Brian & Bob
% > > IPv6 WG co-chairs
% > >
% > >
% > >
% > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
% > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
% > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
% > > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
% > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
% >
% >
% > --------------------------------------------------------------------
% > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
% > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
% > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
% > --------------------------------------------------------------------
%
%
% --------------------------------------------------------------------
% IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
% [EMAIL PROTECTED]
% Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
% --------------------------------------------------------------------
%
--
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
