Dave,
Just on this point:
On 5/11/13 2:36 AM, David Conrad wrote:
There isn't any mention of privacy [2] considerations in the draft.
True. The document is documenting current practices and policies. At this
point in time, I'm unaware of a global privacy practice or policy that is
Uch... you can see where my head is:
On 5/11/13 2:14 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
It's probably worth saying that the various PDPs SHOULD address policy
considerations. How they address them is a matter for them, individually.
s/policy considerations/privacy considerations/
Grr...
Eliot
Hi David,
At 18:36 10-05-2013, David Conrad wrote:
Sure, but it is also looking towards the remaining few IPv4
allocations that will be made over the next few years.
I am looking at the draft from an IETF perspective. There is IPv4
address space for protocol assignments. It could be said
On 12/05/2013 03:17, SM wrote:
...
The fact that the IPv6 address pool is very large does not remove the
fact that it is a not an infinite resource and thus, constraints must
be applied to allocation policy.
The constraints are not set by the IETF. It's up to other communities
to see what
At 13:08 11-05-2013, Tom Vest wrote:
Sorry, but unless you can point to some relevant real-world examples
of self-executing, self-sustaining principles, or you're a nihilist
and don't really believe that such things as principles exist at
all, this is a patently false, bordering on nonsense
