Subject: (IPng 6955) Re: Request to Advance "Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast Addresses"

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 15:24:48 -0500

> 	Title		: Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast Addresses
> 	Author(s)	: D. Johnson, S. Deering
> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipngwg-resv-anycast-01.txt
> 	Pages		: 5
> 	Date		: 19-Oct-98

Couple of things, one minor, one maybe not.

> 5. IANA Considerations
> 
>    This document defines a set of reserved subnet anycast addresses,
>    based on a set of anycast identifiers within each subnet prefix
>    in the IPv6 unicast address space.  As future needs arise, new
>    anycast identifiers may be defined.  Such anycast identifiers MUST be
>    reserved within all subnet prefixes, and so the assignment of these
>    anycast identifiers requires centralized administration.  New values
>    SHOULD be assigned in descending numerical order and are expected to
>    be assigned only with IESG approval.

how about adding "as defined in [RFC 2434]" to the end of the last
sentence to tie it with what I assume is the intended definition of
"IESG Approval".

Actually, is "IESG Approval" really the policy what the WG wants to
select?  This allows one to assign anycast addresses without there
even being an RFC describing its use. Seems like "IETF Consensus" or
"Standards Action" might be more appropriate.

Also, MUST/MAY/SHOULD language is used without definition.
(Suggestion: reference rfc 2119).

Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:10:00 -0800

Thomas,

I think the authors are on holiday so I will answer.

>"Standards Action" might be more appropriate.

I don't think we want to require that these can only be assigned to
standards track protocols (i.e., an experimental protocol should also be
OK) but agree the protocol should be documented.  How about something like
the following:

   New values SHOULD be assigned in descending numerical order and SHOULD
   be assigned in conjunction with the publication of an RFC defining the
   protocol using the assignment.

>(Suggestion: reference rfc 2119).

Yes, this should be added as well.

I assume that these changes can be made after the IESG last call is completed.

Thanks,
Bob

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 16:21:40 -0500

>    protocol using the assignment.

The "politically correct" way of stating this is to say something
like:

    New values SHOULD be assigned in descending numerical order and
    are to be assigned according to IETF Consensus as defined in [RFC
    2434].

(i.e., 2434 has a list of common IANA recipes one can choose from)

> I assume that these changes can be made after the IESG last call is

Yep.

Thomas

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:49:31 -0800

Thomas,

>(i.e., 2434 has a list of common IANA recipes one can choose from)

Yes, I agree.

Thanks,
Bob