I read Peter Koch's comments archived at
http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg56447.html
as a strong hint that this document, draft-iana-rfc3330bis-06,
should be published as a BCP, and that the normative language
needs to be strengthened forther, with a MUST NOT for all
private/documentation/testing addresses regarding use and
forwarding in the public Internet.
I heartfully support this approach -- I did not understand why
that original intent had been changed during the update to the
-05 version; IIRC, in my previous reviews of the document I had
not recommended that change.
And indeed, if this document is going to become a BCP, the history
(Section 3) can (and should) be moved into an appendix.
However, splitting off another tiny document solely for documenting
a single new assignment seems to be overstressing of the resources
of the IESG and the RFC publication process.
Kind regards,
Alfred Hönes.
--
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 |
| D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah(_at_)TR-Sys(_dot_)de
|
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf