Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-iana-rfc3330bis (Special Use IPv4 Addresses) to Informational RFC

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:29:11 +0200 (MESZ)

I read Peter Koch's comments archived at
   http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg56447.html
as a strong hint that this document, draft-iana-rfc3330bis-06,
should be published as a BCP, and that the normative language
needs to be strengthened forther, with a MUST NOT for all
private/documentation/testing addresses regarding use and
forwarding in the public Internet.
I heartfully support this approach -- I did not understand why
that original intent had been changed during the update to the
-05 version; IIRC, in my previous reviews of the document I had
not recommended that change.

And indeed, if this document is going to become a BCP, the history
(Section 3) can (and should) be moved into an appendix.

However, splitting off another tiny document solely for documenting
a single new assignment seems to be overstressing of the resources
of the IESG and the RFC publication process.

Kind regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+