I agree that using the standard documentation prefixes would be best, but I was actually pointing to the previous discussion of the use of documentation prefixes.
On 8 Sep, Randy (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg03304.html) said: >look at rfc 5737 IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation and on 8 Sep, Terry (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg03305.html) replied: >From time to time authors choose to use non rfc5737 address blocks as the >examples can't often be adequately described or remain uniform with the >documentation prefixes. I was suggesting that the authors make the argument that the documentation prefixes are insufficient for this draft's purpose *in the draft* to avoid making the same argument as the document progresses. --Sandy ________________________________________ From: Geoff Huston [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:37 PM To: Randy Bush Cc: sidr wg; Murphy, Sandra Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-02.txt On 22/12/2011, at 2:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> And why not use the documentation prefix(es) and documentation AS(es) >> in this draft. rather than 10/8 etc. That's what they are there for. > > the draft in $subject uses 10/8. i think sandy was pointing out that > the ips and asns in rfc 5737 might be more appropriate. is the latter > what you mean by "documentation xxx?" > > so what is it you are suggesting? i suspect you are agreeing with sandy > but can not parse. my error, likely, too much good theater and food. > > randy I think the set is RFC5737, RFC3849, and RFC5398. That is what I am suggesting. Geoff _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
