Geoff,
Thanks for your comments. Inline:
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)
Right.
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).
Agreed.
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.
The proper location has been up for discussion at
various times. At the time that we decided to make
the 2nd last call, the IESG and the authors felt that
its more important to answer the high level questions
first and that the exact placement in the space would
not have a significant impact on the answer.
As for the actual placement -- I would be inclined
to listen to the advice of folks such as yourself on
that. But you may be right above that its more
about a point of principle than a practical
consideration.
--Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf