My concern is really to get this in place reasonably quickly, and I think that means setting relatively clear guidelines for IANA rather than leaving the field open for endless debate.
I believe that you and I are in agreement here Brian in a general sense, but we possibly differ on what "relatively clear guidelines for IANA".
I do _not_ think that the current draft has these properties, and I am voicing the view that a further revision of the draft is appropriate as per my comments already on this topic.
It's kind of hard to write down "avoid a gold rush" as an intended outcome of an RFC, but in fact I agree with the direction of the suggested text changes in your message cited above, except that I don't see how to avoid a single authority and therefore a natural monopoly... which is definitely not an IETF issue.
And I'm advocating the view that the document can be further revised such that it can provide reasonable guidelines to IANA without getting into "gold rush" space and without getting into "anti-trust" space, and I would rather that this document were revised a further cycle to correct this before its passed to the IESG as a WG output.
regards,
Geoff
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
