[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again

[Edward Lewis]

At 11:52 PM +0200 5/29/07, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

>And, in the worst case, if the IETF fails again on this (I'm sure will not

What is meant by the "IETF fails...on this"?  The IETF prides itself 
on allowing any idea to be presented but requiring a consensus to 
promote meritorious ideas.  Just because a draft has appeared doesn't 
mean the idea was a good one - I should know, I've written a whole 
lot of expired drafts myself (and even some obsoleted RFCs).

It would be more convenient if the IETF documented why a draft is 
left to expire, so that future efforts don't repeat mistakes made 
before.

What I *sense* is happening here is that the RIRs are being used to 
do an end-run around the IETF process.  This 'sense' is based on 
reading the draft (and seeing that this is along the lines of site 
local), looking at the mail list archives (which lacks overwhelming 
support to promote this), and the hint that the IETF is failing to 
promote ULA (perhaps that is just from the choice of words).
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Sarcasm doesn't scale.