Subject: [v6ops] Follow-up Discussion - draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices - ULA

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:01:25 -0400

V6ops,

We apologize for the delay from IETF93/Prague on getting discussions out 
for key topics on the draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices document. We are 
sending out three separate emails to keep the discussion trains split 
for the three topics.

The second discussion point was that of ULA text and how that was 
integrated into the document.  The text will be updated to align well 
with other documents such as RFC7381 (Enterprise Incremental) and still 
points to documents such as draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations.

There was some objection to the association of RFC1918 and ULAs, which 
were both referred to as 'private' inside the design choices document.  
The author team recognizes that the RFC1918 addresses and ULAs are 
architecturally different.  However the selection criteria and use cases 
by which an operator may use ULAs are common to how RFC1918 addresses 
would be selected / used.  Also, many of the operational considerations 
are common when using ULAs vs. RFC1918.

The document text will be updated (version -09) to ensure this is 
understood by the reader and that the ULA text is not seen as a directly 
replacement for RFC1918s.

regards,

Victor K