michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com wrote:
1. This is NOT ARIN's decision to make, nor that of any of
the other RIRs, because the /48 decision is not independent
of many other design decisions in IPv6.
Show me the document where this is explained.
for the most part, we don't document the rationale for our design
decisions, and we're even less likely to document the interdependencies
between our design decisions. that doesn't mean that such
interdependencies don't exist.
2. If ARIN or any of the other RIRs have concerns about an
IETF design decision, they need to express that to IETF and
ask IETF to fix it.
ARIN, like the IETF, is mainly a bunch of individuals. I, as an
individual with a history of involvement in ARIN (I was a founding
member of the ARIN Advisory Council), have already come to this mailing
list, which ostensibly is frequented by individuals who have a history
of involvement in the IETF. I have already asked the IETF to fix this.
Clearly you do not believe that a request from an individual is
sufficient. Since the IETF seems to be defined by its documents, I
wonder which RFC I can refer to in order to find out the correct formal
process for ARIN to follow in order to ask the IETF to fix the problem?
has ARIN, acting as an organization, attempted to communicate this to
IETF at all?
I don't know that there is a single correct way to do this, but sending
a note to IESG and/or IAB detailing the concerns and the reasons for
ARIN's current policy, and (if the material is long enough) writing an
internet-draft to support that note, both seem like useful and
appropriate ways of communicating concerns to IETF.
The fact is that we need a document explaining the IPv6 architecture as
it stands today. A document that can guide the RIRs but also the many
IPv4 network designers who are being forced to architect or design their
first IPv6 network. A compact document that fairly states the IETF's
intent with regard to IPv6. But most importantly of all, this document
must answer objections and common misunderstanding. Failure to do this
last item, is failure to communicate, which will cause many people to
waste time and waste a lot of money.
The document sounds like a good idea.
You can't answer objections and
correct misunderstandings unless you participate in forums *OUTSIDE* the
IETF where the objections and misunderstandings arise.
well, mumble. we can't be expected to participate in all of those
fora. there are too many of them and just keeping up with IETF is
difficult enough.
maybe what we need is a better interface for "outsiders". something
like an FAQ file and a way to submit new questions.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf