[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    (IPng 683) Re:  WG Last Call: Address Formats & Experimental Allocation
From:       "Thomas Narten" <narten () VNET ! IBM ! COM>
Date:       1995-09-19 12:39:59
[Download RAW message or body]

>       An IPv6 Provider-Based Unicast Address Format
>       Y. Rekhter, P. Lothberg, R. Hinden, S. Deering, and J. Postel
>       draft-ietf-ipngwg-unicast-addr-fmt-02.txt
>       proposed RFC status: Informational

>Recall that the unicast address format document was discussed in the
>Danvers meeting, and the concensus of that meeting was to publish it as
>an Informational RFC after revisions to the format to leave more room for
>future growth.  The -02 version of that document incorporates those
>revisions.

Just what is the practical impact of publishing this document as an
Informational vs. PS RFC? It's not at all clear to me that an
Informational RFC gives the IANA the go ahead to start handing out
addresses under this format. I know that RFC 1602 isn't exactly
authoritative, but it says:

>              An "Informational" specification is published for the
>              general information of the Internet community, and does
>              not represent an Internet community consensus or
>              recommendation.  The Informational designation is intended
>              to provide for the timely publication of a very broad
>              range of responsible informational documents from many
>              sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to
>              verification that there has been adequate coordination
>              with the standards process.
>
>              Specifications that have been prepared outside of the
>              Internet community and are not incorporated into the
>              Internet standards process by any of the provisions of
>              Section 4 may be published as Informational RFCs, with the
>              permission of the owner.

In short, it would appear that publishing this document as an
Informational RFC does not allow the assignment of such addresses to
begin.

Would someone who (better) understands the process please comment?

Thomas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Mailing List		      FTP archive: ftp.parc.xerox.com/pub/ipng
IPng Home Page:          http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-main.html
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]