I’m not sure it is helpful to have the special use IPv4 address in more than
one RFC
i.e., why not just point to RFC 6890 rather than reproduce it?
and if there is a reason to make a new one then this doc should unambiguously
obsolete RFC 6890
Scott
On Dec 16, 2013, at 12:55 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Internet Numbers Registries'
<draft-housley-number-registries-02.txt> as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2014-01-22. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
RFC 7020 provides information about the Internet Numbers Registry
System and how it is used in the distribution of autonomous system
(AS) numbers and globally unique unicast Internet Protocol (IP)
address space.
This companion document identifies the IANA registries that are part
of the Internet Numbers Registry System at this time.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-number-registries/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-number-registries/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.