I agree. I got a response from one of the authors after this saying my interpretation was correct. So this would be one correction that needs to be made.
I will ask the authors for this clarification in the wording to be made. Cheers! Marla -----Original Message----- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 1:26 AM To: Azinger, Marla Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02 and RIR documentation On 2007-06-19 00:29, Azinger, Marla wrote: > Michael- I dont believe that was the intent and there might be a little > misinterpretation here due to how it was written. The document says: > >> The designated allocation authority is required to document how they > will meet the requirements described in Section 3.2 of this document > in an RFC.< > > This states the RIR's need to document how they will meet the requirements > once section 3.2. It dont believe the author intends for RIR's to write an > RFC. I believe the intent of the sentence you question is actually saying in > a round about way that RIR's need to use their policy process and write > policy's that will meet the requirements stated in section 3.2 of the draft. > Thus, synchronizing the RFC and RIR policy. > > Or at least that is what I had discussed on a conference call with R. Hinden > and T. Narten before the revision was made. So Bob or Thomas, correct me if > I am wrong here... Marla, if your interpretation is correct (and I hope it is) the words "in an RFC" need to be deleted from the draft. Brian
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
