Dear Iljitsch,
Let me object a few things on the grounds of reality :-)
At 12:08 23/03/04, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Actually you are in fact describing the current situation, except that
there is only one language we are all expected to be proficient in: English.
Basic American. Several key words in newtork architecture have a meaning in
English I agree with and another or no meaning in American I disagree with.
One is "global" (the source of most of our contentions), another is
precisely "concertation". Look at the meaings at
http://europa.eu.int/eurodicautom and
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=concertation
But the fact of the matter is that all IETF and nearly all related I*
business has been conducted in English since inception, and changing
languages now is infeasible.
You are right. We will come back to normal multilingual ways when resuming
with a normal multitechnologies approach.
But policy matters that go beyond an office or RIR region should be in
English to avoid problems.
I am not sure they do not inscrease them :-). I recall a NATO operation
where everything was smooth, except that American and English exchanges
were the fun of everyone : 1/2 of the voice traffic was "SAY AGAIN - I SAY
AGAIN"
Note that address policies by definition have global impact, as all those
prefixes must be stored in routers worldwide, which is something the RIRs
don't seem to realize when once again decreasing minimum allocation sizes.
You are right. Will the IPv6.001 numbering plan (confusing adressing and
routing) not be worse than CIDR?
jfc