On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Bob Hinden wrote: > >But I'm not sure it can. > > > >I, for one, am very adamantly against reserving 2000:0001::/32. That > >wastes a complete 2000::/16 (if, for some purposes, a whole /16 or first > >parts of it are needed). An extremely bad idea, IMO. I'd recommend taking > >something from 2001, like 2001:0001::/32 or 2001:FFFF::/32. > > I viewed it as opening up the rest of the 2000::/16 prefix for /32 > allocations. Currently all of 2000::/16 is reserved in > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-tla-assignments > > I guess it depends on how one looks at it.
Yes, I'd like to keep it for something more "special", yet to come. > > > >5.0 References > > > > > > > >==> split the references. > > > > > > Why? Most are normative or very static. > > > >Because otherwise the draft will get bounced back when the AD checks for > >ID-nits, and because it's required before it can get to the RFC editor.. > > For practical purposes they are all normative. It if helps, I can say that > in the next version of the draft. Yes, that would be a right thing to do, I think. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
