Speaking only as an individual wg participant, I appreciate the concerns you are raising but am hoping that you are not contemplating a divisive and time-consuming appeals process such as the one we have just come through for site local deprecation.
Please consider that published documents are by no means fixed for all time; rather, there is clear past precedence for course-corrections once operational experience is gained, e.g., through supplementary documents, BCPs, updates to existing documents, etc. (We are in fact seeing numerous instances of the latter in current wg activities.)
Regards,
Fred L. Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alain Durand wrote:
Dears ADs,
I found it very unfortunate that the chair decided to request to advance this document
without answering two major issues I raised during the last call:
- Permanent allocation is equivalent of selling address space, which is very different from
the notion of stewardship that are now in place for any IP address allocation today.
There are a number of legal questions not answered around this point.
More, this is imposing a business model to the entity that will be in charge of the allocations,
and I believe that the IETF should refrain from imposing business model.
- The document does not contain any wording recommending against the 'all zero' self allocation.
It merely say that:
"Locally assigned global IDs MUST be generated with a pseudo-random
algorithm consistent with [RANDOM].". However, it should be noted that [RANDOM]
or RFC1750 does not contain any mandate, just provide ideas on how to do things.
An 'all zero' self allocation would create the prefix FD00::/48 and will be very tempting
to use by many.
This working group just spend more than a year to deprecate the site local
fec0::/10 prefixes, just to reinvent it here.
As the request to advance this document came from the Ipv6 wg chairs, representing the wg,
it is my opinion that the IPv6 Working Groug has made an incorrect technical choice which
places the quality and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant
jeopardy.
As the request to advance this document has already been sent to you, ADs,
this is my appeal to you to reject it and send it back to the working group.
- Alain.
On Feb 18, 2004, at 5:22 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
Margaret & Thomas, On behalf of the IPv6 working group, the chairs request the advancement of:
Title : Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses Author(s) : R. Hinden, B. Haberman Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2004-2-13
as a Proposed Standard. The -02 version completed working group last call on 02/02/2004. This version addresses issues raised during the last call period.
Regards, Brian & Bob IPv6 WG co-chairs
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
