Re: [sig-policy] prop-061-v001: 32-bit ASNs for documentation purposes
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
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