But this is enough about my opinions. Please
state your opinion -- in the interest of not
replicating this discussion on multiple lists,
send follow-ups to ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_)
3 last call comments:
Firstly Section 2 describes the prefix as a 28 bit quantity, yet
section 7 (IANA Considerations) is not specific I suggest: adding
"/28 prefix" to the text in Section 7 (IANA Considerations)
Secondly, in Section 7 the IANA allocation is described as
"temporary", yet there is no definition of what "temporary" means in
this context. The authors should be consulted to define "temporary"
in terms of clear instructions to IANA (e.g. unitil otherwise
instructed by the IESG, or for 5 years from the data of the allocation, etc).
Thirdly, given that these IDs are not intended to be used in a
conventional sense of unicast addresses, then the IESG should
carefully consider why this allocation should be made from unicast
IPv6 address space. The draft does not provide a clear and coherent
rationale for such an allocation in my personal opinion. However, at
the size of a /28 this is more a point of principle than anything
else, and the IESG may be of the view that the requested allocation
is sufficiently small so as to present no particular concern one way
or another.
regards,
Geoff Huston
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf