At 22:16 20-11-2012, Geoff Huston wrote:
The guidelines for IP address allocations were documented in RFC2050,
adopted in November 1996 as a Best Current Practice. This document
Some parts of RFC 2050 could be considered as Historic. As a FYI
there is only one IANA policy about IPv6 [1].
Hi,
A possible course of action for the LISP Working Group and the IESG to
consider would be for the existing /32 address be documented as an IANA
Special Purpose Address allocation for use in supporting the current
LISP experiment, and for the LISP advocates to make their case for
From: Geoff Huston g...@apnic.net
I don't have any comment, one way or another, on what seems to be the basic
point of your note (about what role, if any, the IETF should play in
allocation).
However, there was one aspect I wanted to comment on (it's not clear, reading
your note, if this
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Noel Chiappa
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:49 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org
Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu; jcur...@arin.net; pwil...@apnic.net;
i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] Last Call:
From: George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com
I don't think that expecting code to handle two blocks (the
experimental one and the permanent one) is asking too much
We disagree. For me, it's extra code/complexity, and it buys you absolutely
nothing at all.
If a single
Last Monday, I gave a short presentation on collaboration among standards
development organizations at the Global Standards Symposium in Dubai, UAE.
The Internest Society has posted my slides and a transcript of my words. These
are available here:
Date:Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:16:58 +1100
From:Geoff Huston g...@apnic.net
Message-ID: 99b9866c-41d6-4784-aa69-cd25e5910...@apnic.net
I have no idea whether the allocation requested is reasonable or not,
I haven't read the draft (and unless it becomes more widely used than
Hi Noel,
I don't think that expecting code to handle two blocks (the
experimental one and the permanent one) is asking too much
We disagree. For me, it's extra code/complexity, and it buys you absolutely
nothing at all.
I don't agree. See below.
If a single permanent allocation that
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Noel Chiappa
If a single permanent allocation that never changes is truly
necessary
Allocation != reservation. Nobody is asking for the entire chunk to be
_allocated_ (i.e. given out), just that it be _reserved_
From: George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com
Allocation != reservation.
You're hairsplitting on semantics in a way that is mostly unhelpful to
the discussion at hand.
I _thought_ that the point of the messages from Geoff and others (who were
questioning about how there were
Make it an allocation for EIDs and ILNP can use it too.
Dino
On Nov 21, 2012, at 12:25 PM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Noel Chiappa
If a single permanent allocation that never changes is truly
A possible course of action for the LISP Working Group and the IESG to
consider would be for the existing /32 address be documented as an IANA
Special Purpose Address allocation for use in supporting the current
LISP experiment, and for the LISP advocates to make their case for
particular
Hi, thanks for the response. I removed sections that didn't seem to need
further comment:
On Nov 19, 2012, at 1:58 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
wrote:
[...]
*** Minor issues *** :
-- section 2.2, last paragraph:
The IKE mention lacks context. Do you mean to suggest
With respect Robert, I disagree with your line of argument and I disagree
with your assertion that a reference to an existing RFC is bogus under
these circumstances
This eid draft does not claim to obsolete or update either the description
of roles and responsibilities in RFC2860 or the
Dear All,
Last IETF in Atlanta a side meeting was held about media without
censorship. Brief conclusion:
- a large group of people is interested in this topic
- implementation of ideas is judged to be key
- difficult to fit in IETF, but other organisations are worse.
Discussion I-D:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6671
Title: Allocation of a Generic Associated
Channel Type for ITU-T MPLS Transport
Profile Operation, Maintenance, and
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6805
Title: The Application of the Path
Computation Element Architecture
to the Determination of a
Sequence of Domains in
WARNING: contains banned part
---BeginMessage---
As described in BCP 101 (RFC 4071) and BCP 113 (RFC 4333), the IESG and the
IAB each select one person for a two-year IAOC term in alternate years. This
year, the IAB will select one person for a term beginning in March 2013.
Following the
Last Monday, I gave a short presentation on collaboration among standards
development organizations at the Global Standards Symposium in Dubai, UAE.
The Internest Society has posted my slides and a transcript of my words. These
are available here:
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IMAP Support for UTF-8'
(draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-12.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Email Address Internationalization
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Barry Leiba and Pete Resnick.
A URL of this Internet
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Simplified POP/IMAP Downgrading for Internationalized Email'
(draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-07.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Email Address Internationalization
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Pete
21 matches
Mail list logo
