Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-bdqks-arin-shared-transition-space

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:34:46 +0200

the concept was first rejected in apnic/taipei in february 2008.  it is
the product of the bad idea fairy.  like whack-a-mole, it keeps coming
back.

this document and draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request are ill
conceived, poorly written, are new major mission drift, and are not even
coordinated.

can't we just put them out of their misery?

randy

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 23:00:58 -0400

Would you please be more specific?

On 9/8/11 11:34 AM, "Randy Bush" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>OPSAWG mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

---

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 22:08:07 -0400

On 11-09-08 11:34 AM, "Randy Bush" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>the concept was first rejected in apnic/taipei in february 2008.

Since then ARIN (policy 2011-5) has approved this in a community forum.

Also, am not sure if that was an accurate "read" of the Prop-058 outcome.

Discussion summary (Found at -
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2008/02/msg00096.
html) seemed to suggest that the concept be taken to the IETF.  It also
suggested that smaller block then a /8 may be more appropriate (/10 < /8).

Shared Transition space has taken back to the IETF for finalization
(following community support)

>  it is

The community seems to differ with your opinion and thinks this a needed
step to take and has provided supporting arguments and technical merits
for the proposal.

>can't we just put them out of their misery?

No

Victor K

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:24:20 +0200

> html) seemed to suggest that the concept be taken to the IETF.

actually, i said they should go go hell, and hell is i the ietf

> The community seems to differ with your opinion 

to me the community seems divided on the subject.  ymmv.

randy

---

From: Matthew Kaufman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:52:53 +0200

> can't we just put them out of their misery?

I completely agree with these statements and do not support this or the 
other draft for the same reasons.

Matthew Kaufman