j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
the perception seemed to be that it worked.
Sure, we ended up getting a documentation prefix, but that doesn't mean that the path that led to the end point was the best one...
This sort of global reservation is best made by IANA (at the request of someone). We have lots of examples/precedent for that. The IETF is the logical place for the request to come from.
that last is not completely clear. it's at the border between ops/rirs and tech/ietf.
Agree there is room to argue, but there almost always is. :-)
IMO, the question is whether an individual RIR is the best place to be making such a reservation or whether there is a more appropriate place.
And I also have to ask, if this type of request is within-scope for APNIC's PDP, just what exactly are the scope boundaries? Anything the community thinks it should take on is OK? Are there no limits? (Be careful what you wish for...)
o for it to have global/formal effect, there probably should be an rfc directing the iana
If APNIC makes the reservation, IANA can only record what APNIC has done after the fact.
as it did with the v6 documentation prefix. this is perceived as having worked.
Depends on your definition. In that case, just like in this one, there was (to my knowledge) no attempt to raise the issue within the IETF first. The IETF works in a demand-driven mode. If no one points out the need for something, it won't happen on its own.
o but an apnic allocation would do in the long meantime
I disagree about the "long" part. The IETF can do this quickly too.
( i will keep my mouth shut. i will keep my mouth shut. ... :)
Also, it wouldn't be a "meantime". Once APNIC makes the reservation, it cannot be revoked, since the vendor might have already put bit into documentation.
is there a problem with this? is it a bug or a feature?
At a technical level, probably not problem. But I worry about the precedent that will be set. Sometime in the future, the topic may be much more controversial...
so we have the volunteer. folk did look at him with expectation.
so what is actually broken here? ietf's tosies being stepped on?
Of course it is an issue of turf. And if the IETF took on a task that an RIR felt was more appropriately theirs, they would object too. (Or grumble quietly, or something.)
I'll grant that in this case, the issue of where the work gets done is relatively small, since there is general agreement on the technical solution. But a precendent is being set. Sometime in the future, that precedent will get cited in a case where the stakes may well be higher. And then the principle may well matter a whole lot more. And the spirit of cooperation in effect between the respective communities will come into play.
It would be nice to sort out the scope issue while we have a proposal in which there is general (overwhelming?) agreement on the technical need and solution. I'd hate to have to also sort out the scope issue when the issue itself is complex as well.