Subject: IESG review comments on ULA draft

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:49:42 -0400

All,
      As a part of the IESG review, a member of the RIR community has
provided comments on the ULA draft.  I will posting those comments to
the mailing list as separate notes shortly.  As a part of that review,
Bob & I made the decision to split the ULA draft into two drafts.  One
draft discusses only the locally allocated addresses.  The second draft
discusses the centrally-allocated addresses.  This was done to allow
the locally-allocated addresses to move through the review process
without getting hung-up on comments/issues with the central allocation
scheme.

      The comments to follow are focused on the central allocation of ULA
addresses.  So, the local allocation draft will continue through the
IESG review process.

Regards,
Brian & Bob

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:48:29 +1000

At 06:49 AM 30/06/2004, Brian Haberman wrote:
>discusses the centrally-allocated addresses.

Hi Brian,

As this is a working group document I would like to understand on what 
basis this decision was taken. I could be mistaken here but I would've 
thought that it would be reasonable for the working group chairs to seek 
the views of the working group before making changes to a working group 
document. The basis for my concern here is that I see this splitting of the 
document into two as an action that appears to take a fundamental problem 
of assured address uniqueness and turns it into what could be loosely 
characterized as a random free-for-all. I'm personally unconvinced that 
what appears from the outside to be short term expediency on the part of 
the WG Chairs should be an acceptable substitute for, at the very least, 
seeking the views of the working group prior to making such decisions.

regards,

   Geoff Huston