For those who were not in the room this evening, my comments were that the complaints on the list about the draft fall into a couple of broad categories:
One class basically intends to tell people how to run their networks. The IETF defines how the protocols work, not how individual networks are run. Another class basically ignores the reality that network managers will deploy address space for local use, no matter what the IETF does. The IETF can provide a place for those organizations to meet their local requirements, or deal with the randomness that will result. Unfortunately I had to leave at that point for a jury, so I do not know what discussion happened related to Fred's presentation of the draft itself. One comment I did have though was the delay of the milestone as presented by the chairs due to comments seems inappropriate since neither Fred nor I know of any outstanding issues. This document is detailing the reasons that individual network managers use private address space. It really doesn't matter if the IETF believes they are wrong, this is what they do and will continue to do to meet their requirements. The only thing the IETF can do is provide alternatives that are cheaper in each environment. Since consistency plays a significant role in recurring operational costs, to achieve any deployment, the various proposals suggesting that the IETF provide a pile of different approaches for segments of the problem space will need to show these network managers how such a collection is cheaper than the increased training and generally higher clue factor of the operations staff needed to run them. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
