David,
On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:56 PM, David Farmer <farmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu> wrote:
1. The part about RFC2860 in Section 1 seems like an incomplete thought, at
the very least it seems awkward to me. I'm really not sure what you are
intending to say. But, I agree RFC2860 is relevant to the discussion. I'm
just not sure you have nailed what to say about it.
I suspect it might be a bit hard for Russ to take action on this point without
a bit more info as to what you feel is awkward or what's missing.
2. I really like the idea of creating a "Special-Purpose AS Number Registry".
However, it may be a better idea to spin-off the creation of a
"Special-Purpose AS Number Registry" into a separate draft. I'm concerned
that trying to do two important things in the same document will fail to
achieve one or both of the important things.
While I don't oppose splitting the docs, I'm not sure it's necessary as I don't
believe there's anything controversial in Russ's draft. What do you foresee as
blocking the document or causing it to fail in either of its goals?
For instance the simple section 3 you have currently worries me. I'd really
think RFC6890 is the template to use for creating a "Special-Purpose AS
Number Registry", more below.
Seem's a bit of overkill to me (I like short documents).
Regards,
-drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail