2013-01-31 11:26, Ray Hunter <[email protected]> : >> GangChen <mailto:[email protected]> >> ... >> Just some comments from operational views. I guess it's true operators >> could avoid confliction with u=1 g=1 in near future. However, I >> believe that is relative short-term guarantee with the condition of a >> particular operational domain. The term of "experimental" is not >> really mean "experimental" to a commercial network. It would be safe >> for operations if there is legitimate registry to ensure there is no >> need to renumbering. Therefore I prefer Remi's proposal (e) to grant >> 4rd 0x0300. >> >> Best Regards >> >> Gang >> > > I disagree. > > See http://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html > > IMVHO "Experimental" means everything could change: including a need for > mass renumbering or equipment replacement. > > Publication is "Subject only to editorial considerations and to > verification that there has been adequate coordination with the > standards process." No guarantees. The test I am currently applying when > reviewing this ID is whether the experiment is likely to cause harm. > > I see no compelling reason at this time to define a global reservation > or an explicit IID structure in order for the experiment to be able to > proceed and succeed. On the other hand, adding a reservation and > structure to the IID at this time would likely impact other > implementations (e.g. packet classifiers) and existing documents and IDs > (e.g. address selection).
Please see the answer on this point in my previous email to you. > If you want 4rd to be "informational" or "standards track" I also think > that's worth discussing, "Experimental" or "standard" has been abundantly discussed in Softwire. "Experimental" is THE CONCLUSION, worth leaving as is. The question to 6man is whether 6man confirms, or not, that the proposed IID-range reservation is compatible with the IPv6 addressing architecture (as found after a thorough study of the subject before proposing it). > but then I also think there's a lot more to > specify and discuss beyond the current ID. Being more specific would clarify what you mean by this "lot more" It should preferably be in Softwire if it doesn't concern 6man, or even be in a private discussion if you didn't follow previous work on the subject. I will do my best to answer. Regards, RD -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
