Subject: Re: [GROW] How to progress - Private IP in SP Core

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:37:15 -0400

Tony,

Note, I'm not speaking for the chairs or the ADs. 

On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 10:48:10AM +1000, Anthony Kirkham wrote:
> I'd appreciate any advice on how I might progress this draft. I'm
> reasonably happy with it now, but unsure how to take it the next
> step. I'd greatly appreciate any guidance.

Two paths are:
- Keep it as an individual submission and find an AD to sponsor the
  appropriate IESG review, etc:
  http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-docs.html
- Get the GROW chairs to do some of this work for you by requesting adoption
  of the draft as a GROW WG document.  Glancing at the *very stale* charter,
  it's in scope for the WG.  IMO, given the amount of comment the draft has
  received to date, perhaps it should even just go through WGLC.

-- Jeff

P.S. to the GROW chairs - it's probably time for a recharter.  And I thought
the BFD milestones were stale! :-)

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:45:19 -0400

Sigh.  I replied to an item in an mis-sorted grow mailbox without checking
the date.  It looks like this was supported for WG adoption, but I still
don't see a matching draft-grow?

-- Jeff

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 04:37:15PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:04:07 -0400

> don't see a matching draft-grow?

we missed the draft 00 deadline, so Tony I think is sending (or has
sent?) one in anyway and it out to pop out the sausage manufacture
when the floodgates open.

---

From: Anthony Kirkham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:23:08 +1000

I have just uploaded "draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores-00" on 
datatracker. It has sent me the full access URL email, but given the 
last time I thought it was all uploaded OK, and wasn't, I'd appreciate 
if someone could verify the upload was successful

Tony K

On 25/03/12 1:04 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Jeffrey Haas<[email-masked]>  wrote:

--

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:22:51 -0400

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Anthony Kirkham
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> datatracker. It has sent me the full access URL email, but given the last
> time I thought it was all uploaded OK, and wasn't, I'd appreciate if someone
> could verify the upload was successful

I approved the submit, congrats!

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:40:07 +0200

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Morrow" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Anthony Kirkham" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 1:22 PM

<tp>
Yippee

I would suggest changing the normative reference to
bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space]
since that is now expired and so would delay things.
draft-weil
is in the RFC Editor's queue so that is ok.

Perhaps
OLD
 To address this scenario and others, at the time of writing, work was
   in progress to obtain a dedicated /10 address block for the purpose
   of Shared CGN (Carrier Grade NAT) Address Space.  Please refer to
   [bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space] and [weil-shared-transition-
   space-request] for details.  The purpose of Shared CGN Address Space
   is to number CPE (Customer Premise Equipment) interfaces that connect
   to CGN devices.  As explained in [weil-shared-transition-space-
   request], RFC1918 addressing has issues when used in this deployment
   scenario.

NEW
 To address this scenario and others, the IETF has allocated a dedicated /10
address block for the purpose
   of Shared CGN (Carrier Grade NAT) Address Space.  Please refer to
[weil-shared-transition-
   space-request] for details.  The purpose of Shared CGN Address Space
   is to number CPE (Customer Premise Equipment) interfaces that connect
   to CGN devices.  As explained in [weil-shared-transition-space-
   request], RFC1918 addressing has issues when used in this deployment
   scenario.

Tom Petch