Remco, On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:14:08PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:
> I would encourage everyone to carefully read this second version (and not > just respond "no, still hate it, kill it with fire") as it is quite different > from the first version. I have read version 2, also in comparison with version 1. Thanks for removing the DNS and route: objects restrictions. > Basically the only restriction left is to disallow transfers on all "last /8 > space"* going forward, and there is some language added to the policy that > tries to raise awareness that if you just go and parcel out that entire > allocation to endusers, you might end up feeling a little bit silly a couple > of years from now. while the intent is laudable, making it a requirement under 5.1 mixes the formal part and the informational in a confusing way. That said, does "should reserve at least part of this allocation for interoperability with networks that are only reachable using IPv4" mean "should assign at least part of this allocation ... to itself"? And further along the lines of educational text: the references in section need some re-adjustment (this isn't new in 2.0, but for good housekeeping) since RFC 3330 has been finally obsoleted by RFC 6890 (and may or may not be applicable anyway) and RFC 2993 isn't really the final word on NAT any more, especially with that earlier remark on "for interoperability with networks that are only reachable using IPv4". The clarification part remains complicated because of indirections: 5.3 refers to 5.1 only, but the new "ALLOCATED FINAL" then extends the validity across the remaining sections. I'd suggest to give up 5.3 and merge the new text with the final paragraph of 5.2 accordingly. -Peter
