On 7/16/15, 11:24 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Joe Maimon" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of jmaimon@ttec.com> wrote:
To clarify, my criticism of top down is specifically in response to the rationale presented that it is a valid objective to prevent, hinder and refuse to enable efforts that "compete" with ipv6 world-takeover resources.
I don¹t see anybody hindering any efforts; I don¹t see any efforts.
I have no intention of using Class E. I have no intention of developing code that uses Classe E. I will note that the code involved that is publicly searchable appears to be simple and small, the task that is large is adoption spread.
So this argument is moot?
But perhaps we can all agree that standards should be accurate and should not be used to advance uninvolved agenda. And class E experimental status is inaccurate. And keeping that status serves nobody, except those who believe it helps marshal efforts away from IPv4. And that is top down.
So, you would like to update RFC 1112, which defines and reserves Class E? That¹s easy enough. If somebody had a use in mind for the space, anybody can write such a draft assigning space, which is, I believe, how to direct IANA to do something with it. If you want to direct IANA to distribute Class E space among the RIRs, there¹s more process, because you would also have to develop a global policy (no problem, we get the NRO NC to write it and get consensus at all the RIRs), and then each RIR would need to develop a policy under which to allocate it. I¹d be surprised if all that could happen in less than three years. In any of these processes, nothing will move forward until there is consensus, and I don¹t think there¹s consensus. If you think your argument can be persuasive, let¹s write an internet-draft and get it into the process. Lee
Joe