On 2/4/14, 17:44 , Randy Bush wrote:
I understand the cost issues involved. However, the RPKI ROAs and the registration of the non-exclusive users of the prefix is what distinguished this from a special-purpose allocation that needs IETF Review to be made. If you remove that part of the proposal then you should include how you intend to proceed on the issue of IETF Review, or clarify how this is not a special-purpose allocation that needs IETF Review.always good to have folk from outside the region telling everyone what they SHOULD do. randy
I did not intend the normative SHOULD that you are implying, if you prefer s/should/"MAY WISH TO" and see RFC 6919.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6919 Thanks. -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn dot edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================