Re: [sig-policy] prop-061-v001: 32-bit ASNs for documentation purposes
- To: David Woodgate <David.Woodgate at telstra dot net>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-061-v001: 32-bit ASNs for documentation purposes
- From: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:09:21 +1000
- Authentication-results: hkg-dkim-2; header.Fromemail@example.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/hkgdkim2001 verified; );
- Cc: APNIC Policy SIG List <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <200807220007.m6M07XZR071346 at burn dot telstra dot net>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- Organization: Cisco Systems
- References: <487B12CB.firstname.lastname@example.org> <200807142237.m6EMbZ7T065411@burn.telstra.net> <487C0C6B.email@example.com> <487C1376.firstname.lastname@example.org> <200807150402.m6F42K3Q068526@burn.telstra.net> <488479BD.email@example.com> <200807220007.m6M07XZR071346@burn.telstra.net>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 126.96.36.199 (Macintosh/20080707)
Hi David, David Woodgate said the following on 22/7/08 10:07:
Operators from all regions need to write documentation, and not just the Asia-Pacific region. That's why this should be addressed at a global level.
Are you suggesting that this proposal should be taken to all RIR regions and ask each RIR to reserve four 4-byte ASNs? Wouldn't that be a bit odd?
(Actually, I'd argue that this means that:- The proposal should have been considered within the aegis of the IETF in the first place, but it just happened that no one had thought of it there.
I agree. Should Gaurab and I instead appeal to the authors of RFC4893 and the IDR WG to fix this problem? Or just do it ourselves? What should documentation writers do in the meantime?
- Taking it to the IETF after its acceptance by APNIC "corrected" the procedural error of it having been considered by APNIC rather than the IETF.But that's probably beside the point.)
You say there is a procedural error, but is there documentation supporting this? Neither APNIC nor the Policy SIG Chairs have told us that this policy proposal is inappropriate for the Policy SIG meeting to consider.
Plus, as co-author of the IPv6 documentation address proposal and co-author of the follow up RFC I certainly wasn't made aware of any procedural error at any time back then. I've checked all my e-mail archives just to be sure.
But anyway, just so that Gaurab and I are clear, the only way you'd support this idea is if it was taken to the IETF and worked through the standard process?