Re: [OPSAWG] Request to adopt draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues as a WG document

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

Leo,

I certainly didn't read it as Ricardo did, perhaps because of
my strong belief that expanding "private" space would be a blunder
of historic proportions. But if even one person can read it that
way, the language clearly needs to be clarified.

That said, I think this is a useful document and should help to
prevent the blunder being made, so I'd like to see it adopted.

Regards
   Brian

On 2009-10-08 10:39, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Hi Ricardo,
> 
> On 07/10/2009 11:02, "Ricardo Patara" <patara at lacnic.net> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Then, it has separate chapter:
>> 5.  Options and Consequences for Defining New Private Use Space
>>
>> Giving the idea to the reader that this is the best way to solve the
>> problem.
>> Am I right on reading it this way? Was it the idea of the authors?
> 
> No, we did not intend to present the options described in section 5 as
> preferred outcomes. We just wanted to describe the pros and cons for each of
> those options. Was there specific language that implied we supported these
> options, or was it something else that gave you that impression?
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Leo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>