On 2/4/14, 17:44 , Randy Bush wrote:
I understand the cost issues involved. However, the RPKI ROAs and the
registration of the non-exclusive users of the prefix is what
distinguished this from a special-purpose allocation that needs IETF
Review to be made. If you remove that part of the proposal then you
should include how you intend to proceed on the issue of IETF Review,
or clarify how this is not a special-purpose allocation that needs
IETF Review.
always good to have folk from outside the region telling everyone what
they SHOULD do.
randy
I did not intend the normative SHOULD that you are implying, if you
prefer s/should/"MAY WISH TO" and see RFC 6919.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6919
Thanks.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
