Subject: [MBONED] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-06.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:45:01 -0700 (PDT)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the MBONE Deployment Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments
	Author(s)       : M. Cotton, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-06.txt
	Pages           : 11
	Date            : 2009-03-23

This document provides guidance for the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) in assigning IPv4 multicast addresses.  It obsoletes
RFC 3171 and RFC 3138.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-06.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:56:49 -0400

We regard this draft as now ready to go to the IESG, and will so  
announce in session today.

I plan to do this after the close of this week (after Friday). Please  
consider this as a
informal "mini-last call" to make sure that all of the issues raised  
were addressed.

Regards
Marshall

Begin forwarded message:

> From: [email-masked]
> Date: March 23, 2009 12:45:01 PM EDT
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [MBONED] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-06.txt
>
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:45:20 +0200 (EET)

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> We regard this draft as now ready to go to the IESG, and will so announce in 
> session today.
>
> informal "mini-last call" to make sure that all of the issues raised were 
> addressed.

I'm still not very happy about the fact that we haven't defined any 
guidelines for the Designated Expert.  In the absense of such 
guidelines, the expert should by default accept assignments.  I don't 
think that's what we want.

I'm still not very happy about the fact that the document does not 
define a "Local Network Application Block".  A block for assignments 
for those protocols that should not by default be routed on the 
Internet.  Essentially almost all the application requests could go 
there instead of current Ad-hoc blocks (that have an expectation of 
routability).

This would be great for people who need to manage MSDP etc. filters 
for those Norton Ghost etc. -like applications.

If you need a specific suggestion how to go about doing this I'd 
suggest splitting AD-HOC BLOCK I in two, and the upper half 
(224.0.128.0/17) would be designated for Local Applications.

Editorial:

In S 6, it says "Future assignments of blocks of addresses that do not 
fit in the Local or Internetwork block will be made in the Extended 
block."  -- what does "Extended block" refer to?  This block or AD-HOC 
II, or something else?  Reword.

Informative references section now has I-D.ietf-mboned-addrarch but 
that is not referred to anywhere in the text.  It should be cited or 
removed from the references section.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings