Re: [sig-policy] prop-061-v001: 32-bit ASNs for documentation purposes
- To: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-061-v001: 32-bit ASNs for documentation purposes
- From: David Woodgate <David.Woodgate at telstra dot net>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:42:41 +1000
- Cc: APNIC Policy SIG List <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <488C1F21.2000609 at cisco dot com>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <487B12CB.email@example.com> <200807142237.m6EMbZ7T065411@burn.telstra.net> <487C0C6B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <487C1376.email@example.com> <200807150402.m6F42K3Q068526@burn.telstra.net> <488479BD.firstname.lastname@example.org> <200807220007.m6M07XZR071346@burn.telstra.net> <488C1F21.email@example.com>
Philip, At 05:09 PM 27/07/2008, Philip Smith wrote:
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?
No, I'm suggesting that there should be only one reservation out of the global pool to cover all regions, and that it is the role of IANA, not APNIC, to make such global reservations.
I am also suggesting that it should be the role of the IETF to request IANA to make such a reservation, on the basis that documentation examples are really part of technology specifications.
(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?
What's wrong with the two of you submitting this proposal directly as an Internet draft to the IETF?
- 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.
I should have put quotations also around "procedural error" - I did not mean that there had literally been an actual error in procedure, but that - in the framework in my mind of IETF rather than APNIC being responsible for such matters - a "virtual" or "effective" "procedural error" had occurred in Internet standards evolution through APNIC rather than the IETF considering the earlier proposal (if one accepts that framework). I apologise for any unintended implications of my poor wording.
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?