Experimental Internet Resource Allocations

2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure

Bewertung: Konsistent · The question about binding locators to identifiers and the subsequent questions about leakage, unreachable DNS records and diagnostics both scrutinize the proposed addressing mechanism. No express reversal or blanket rejection is present.

Bedingungen: Requests for technical explanation are not counted as votes for or against the entire proposal.

21.04.2006

is this another binding of locators to identifiers?

21.04.2006

could folk please explain how these various suggestions differ from 1918 on the dimensions which seem operationally annoying today?

ARIN-prop-54: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The contribution criticizes using address-assignment policy to influence equipment vendors and favors operator purchasing pressure. It does not state a vote on the later RSA or efficient-use eligibility terms.

Bedingungen: The message predates the later numbered 2007-21 stage and cannot be a contemporary vote on its subsequently adopted text. · One contextual contribution does not establish consistency across revisions of the proposal.

01.08.2007

and trying to use address assignment policy to affect vendors may be the most extreme case of everything looking like a nail to the fool with the hammer that i have ever seen.

01.08.2007

the isps should be shaking withheld orders at the vendors unless they have high quality dual stack kit.

Lame Delegations in IN-ADDR.ARPA

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author explicitly supports cleaning up lame delegations and discusses operational removal and diagnostic information. This single message establishes support with implementation suggestions, but not a longitudinal consistency assessment.

Bedingungen: Operational removal from DNS and retaining useful diagnostic information in whois are different actions, not necessarily contradictory preferences.

08.03.2002

yes!!! at last, something to move towards cleaning up bad data and keeping it clean.

08.03.2002

removed. whois cruisin' humans are not hurt by lamers, systems using dns are.

Experimental Internet Resource Allocations

Bewertung: Konsistent · The later clarification maintains the requirement to use the IETF standards process while distinguishing that requirement from who may originate a proposal. It clarifies the earlier position rather than excluding outside experimenters or reversing support for experimental allocations.

Bedingungen: The author speaks as an IETF member, not its representative. · An offer to seek liaison input is not a formal IAB decision.

16.11.2002

refers to rfc 2434 section 2 and uses the phrase "ietf consensus process."

19.11.2002

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.

Lame Delegations in IN-ADDR.ARPA · 2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure

Bewertung: Konsistent · Supporting removal of broken DNS delegations and questioning internal-address designs that create unreachable DNS records share an operational concern: policy should account for actual failures experienced by network systems. Their different stance labels do not establish a contradiction.

Bedingungen: This is a comparison of the stated operational reasoning, not proof of identical positions on all address policies.

08.03.2002

removed. whois cruisin' humans are not hurt by lamers, systems using dns are.

21.04.2006

o dns entries with unreachables on the rhs

Experimental Internet Resource Allocations · ARIN-prop-54: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use

Bewertung: Konsistent · Seeking IETF-process coordination for experimental resources is compatible with opposing the use of allocation policy to pressure vendors. One concerns the appropriate standards process; the other questions whether allocation rules are the right instrument for a purchasing problem.

Bedingungen: This does not imply opposition to all RIR policy or establish a vote on the later PIv6 eligibility wording.

19.11.2002

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.

01.08.2007

and trying to use address assignment policy to affect vendors may be the most extreme case of everything looking like a nail to the fool with the hammer that i have ever seen.