Pete Resnick wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. There was some
objection at the beginning of this thread by Wes George, Noel
Chiappa, and Brian Carpenter. I agreed that the document
could be misunderstood as encouraging the use of the space as
1918 space and proposed some replacement text. There seemed
to be some agreement around that text. Are you now objecting
to that replacement text and want -14 published as is? Do you
think the document should say that the new allocation can be
used as 1918 space? If so, please explain.
On the first hand, I do support draft-weil. I think I
understand the use cases enough to see that it *is* required,
especially for large MSO's, and potentially larger enterprises.
On the other hand, I can see the confusion regarding "using RFC-1918 space *for
this purpose*" vs "use this space as *additional RFC-1918*. The former just
doesn't work due to
unmanaged overlap. The latter *seems* like it should work,
but if you play it out until the first vendor starts releasing
equipment that uses it, you've now joined the first-case scenerio.
On the gripping hand, I hate the back-and-forth quibbling over the tiniest
motes, hoping that the delays will just make the problem disappear...
So yes, lets please move this draft forward, with the text cleaning stating
that it NOT be used as RFC-1918 space.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf