[ppml] Re: Policy Proposal 2002-2: Experimental Internet Reso urce Allocations

[Randy Bush]

>>   o it states that the standards processes bodies other then the
>>     itef might be used.  the ietf thinks of itself as _the_
>>     standards body at the ip address layer of the stack.  so either
>>     there is mis-understanding here, or a better explanation of
>>     what you mean is needed.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you have written here.......... are you
> saying that experimentation by entities other than IETF be precluded from
> having access to experimental allocations of routable addresses?  I don't
> read into 2002-2 anything that suggest that ARIN is endorsing protocol or
> process standardization by bodies other than IETF.  They are simply making
> address space available for 'open', non-commercial, experimental
> processes.....no?

the issue is what standards organization's process is used to
process a proposal.  in that case, indeed i am saying it should be
ietf's.  note that this is not who may think of proposals.

>>   o 2002-2 limits things to "experimental rfcs."  so, there are
>>     corner cases, for example, a standards track rfc could not be
>>     allocated experimental space.  this is why the tentative draft
>> 
>>     <http://psg.com/~randy/draft-ymbk-sparse-v6-allocation-00.html>
>> 
>>     refers to rfc 2434 section 2 and uses the phrase "ietf
>>     consensus process."  to save you a lookup:
>> 
>> 	IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through the IETF
>> 	consensus process. Specifically, new assignments are made
>> 	via RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will
>> 	seek input on prospective assignments from appropriate
>> 	persons (e.g., a relevant Working Group if one exists).
>
> Also, here, I think you are saying that the qualification upon
> rfc is too restrictive?

not at all.  please reread what i quoted from 2434

randy