On 7/16/15, 11:24 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Joe Maimon" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of jmai...@ttec.com> wrote:
> > >To clarify, my criticism of top down is specifically in response to the >rationale presented that it is a valid objective to prevent, hinder and >refuse to enable efforts that "compete" with ipv6 world-takeover >resources. I don¹t see anybody hindering any efforts; I don¹t see any efforts. > >I have no intention of using Class E. I have no intention of developing >code that uses Classe E. I will note that the code involved that is >publicly searchable appears to be simple and small, the task that is >large is adoption spread. So this argument is moot? > >But perhaps we can all agree that standards should be accurate and >should not be used to advance uninvolved agenda. And class E >experimental status is inaccurate. And keeping that status serves >nobody, except those who believe it helps marshal efforts away from >IPv4. And that is top down. So, you would like to update RFC 1112, which defines and reserves Class E? That¹s easy enough. If somebody had a use in mind for the space, anybody can write such a draft assigning space, which is, I believe, how to direct IANA to do something with it. If you want to direct IANA to distribute Class E space among the RIRs, there¹s more process, because you would also have to develop a global policy (no problem, we get the NRO NC to write it and get consensus at all the RIRs), and then each RIR would need to develop a policy under which to allocate it. I¹d be surprised if all that could happen in less than three years. In any of these processes, nothing will move forward until there is consensus, and I don¹t think there¹s consensus. If you think your argument can be persuasive, let¹s write an internet-draft and get it into the process. Lee > >Joe >