Perhaps, but the issue you allude to is more about calling out routing intention in each and every RFC that requests a reservation or special use allocation from IANA. This has ramifications elsewhere, so for now I firmly believe that the document structure is sound for what is required for the timely deployment of RPKI.
Cheers, Terry On 08/06/2011, at 5:21 PM, "Randy Bush" <ra...@psg.com> wrote: >> It was an IETF process question, not a document structure question. >>>> The question I have is about trying to intrude on the RFC-Editor queue >>>> now, while the iana-objects is having all the boxes ticked and is well >>>> ahead of draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04, or wait for publication >>>> of v6ops-6to4-to-historic and (as already covered in iana-objects) >>>> issue an update. >>> >>> if you are asking this question, perhaps you should be asking why it is >>> not a registry. > > the question may have been about spacecraft fuel. but it made pretty > clear that there was a problem with the document structure which will > reappear. > > randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
