On Dec 21, 2012, at 5:37 PM, "Susan Hares" <sha...@ndzh.com> wrote:
> Peter and Chris: > > We request that the GROW WG review > draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-02.txt? > (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation/) > > Since it modifies RFC 1930, a BCP, it is likely to be a BCP. The draft deals > with the creation of Private USE ASN space in 4 byte octets. > > Two additional questions we’d love input on: > > 1. Do they think the range is too big, too small, or just right” (We’ll > call this the 3 bears question (smile)) > 2. Would they prefer to see the range reserved with some portion of the > range allocated? > > For example, reserve all the space but allocate only 50% of the space. > > This draft has had substantial IDR debate which is (of course) online, and > has been through IDR WG LC. > > We’d appreciate hearing about any operational issues GROW finds with this > draft. As someone who reads both GROW and IDR I'd just like to more that there has already been some operators providing input over on the IDR list... This is not intended to discourage GROWers from commenting, but rather a suggestion that before erupting in indignation (or giggles!) you have a quick look @ the IDR threads on this… They may: a: address your concerns or b: provide you with more ammunition for making your case :-P W > > Thank you, > > John and Sue > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > GROW@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow -- For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
