ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt> (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC

2013-05-11 18:35:16
At 13:08 11-05-2013, Tom Vest wrote:
Sorry, but unless you can point to some relevant real-world examples of self-executing, self-sustaining principles, or you're a nihilist and don't really believe that such things as principles exist at all, this is a patently false, bordering on nonsense statement.

I am not suggesting any self-executing or self-sustaining principles.

One is tempted to ask "work for who?" but that would entail giving this statement more credence that it merits. Since TCP/IP is only useful to the end of communication between two or more nodes, the proposed "principle" of finitude would perfectly consistent with this, and almost every other IETF addressing/attachment protocol *not* working at all.

Or did you mean to say that "The principle for the above is to avoid set any constraint unless it is necessary for IETF protocols to 'work' between two virtual machines, under lab conditions"?

What I meant was to leave policy (PDP, etc.) to the communities interested in IP addressing. I'll quote part of a message posted on the thread:

'To date, the communities interested in IP addressing have established policies that dictate "operational needs" should be the primary constraint (as opposed
   to say constraining on geo-political boundaries, by ability to pay, etc).'

The message is at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg79200.html in case what I was quoted is misrepresented.

At 13:14 11-05-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
It's up to the IETF to set boundary conditions for the address space
that it created (in the case of IPv6) or inherited (in the case of
IPv4), in order to protect the long-term viability of the Internet.

There is some text about Internet address architecture. It would cover that if the relevant communities are agreeable to it.

Regards,
-sm
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>