On 26/07/2011, at 1:48 PM, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
All,
As a data point, the original draft of -00 really started life as a
straight copy of George's and Geoff's draft. I was looking for a way to
establish a procedure for sending instructions to IANA for new delegations to
AS112 nodes, so they paved the way. That said, I also don't have a problem
with splitting my draft into 2: One with the original set of instructions
and another that could possibly either lead to a 'bis' for 6303 or become
another document in a series of AS112 RFCs - much like RFC 6305 seems to be.
(I'm more pragmatic in the sense that I'd like to see the instructions go
forward faster than another Informational RFC/bis. :-) )
Thanks,
wfms
I would support this latter approach William: I think we should seek WG
adoption of three drafts
1) the michaelson as112-ipv6 draft, aiming for at least one 01 spin to a small
set of non-controversial V6 delegations, moving to WGLC and IANA asap.
2) your as112-ipv4-cull draft, but shorn of the operational aspects, likewise
rapid movement to WGLC and IANA
3) an AS112 operational draft more in the nature of 6304/5/bis
I would like to ask for WG adoption of AS112-IPv6 on that basis.
cheers
-George
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
