The IETF has never rejected this. It was just postponed. In addition to that, once more, there is nothing in the PDP that precludes for following something that is not IETF RFC, and this has been clear in many emails before this one. Actually whoever is stating something like this at this point, in my opinion is trying to manipulate the PDP. Regards, Jordi

De: <michael.dillon@bt.com> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Fecha: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:47:01 +0100 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Conversación: [address-policy-wg] 2007-05 Discussion Period extended until 9 July 2007 (IPv6 ULA-Central) Asunto: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-05 Discussion Period extended until 9 July 2007 (IPv6 ULA-Central)

...

PDP Number: 2007-05 IPv6 ULA-Central

Dear Colleagues

The Discussion Period for the proposal described in 2007-05 has been extended until 9 July 2007.

It disturbs me to see that RIPE is seriously engaged in discussing the implementation of an addressing proposal that the IETF has already rejected. Anyone who supports this proposal AT THIS TIME, is also attacking the current structure of the Regional Internet Registry system and its relationship to IANA, the IETF and ICANN.

This is not the time or the place to be discussing central ULA addresses. If the IETF has rejected the idea in the past, then it is up to people to fix their design and take it back to the IETF forums. Regional Internet Registries should not create policy for numbering resources which have not been created by the IETF or delegated to the RIRs by IANA.

--Michael Dillon

********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

Hi, Jeroen Massar wrote:

Filiz Yilmaz wrote:

...

PDP Number: 2007-05 IPv6 ULA-Central

Dear Colleagues

The Discussion Period for the proposal described in 2007-05 has been extended until 9 July 2007.

As the IETF is re-addressing this issue at the moment, I suggest that until they are done re-analyzing and coming to a conclusion that this submission is frozen till that work is done and completed.

There are various suggestions already that it might be very possible that IANA directly will provide this service. Next to the more likely result that ULA-C won't even exist due to the many concerns raised already by various operators in the community.

Please FREEZE this proposal till all that work is done.

i second that - quite useless at the time being. That's also a reason i didn't comment on the proposal itself. To get that straight: I do like the fast track on proposals, but this one is a little to premature. ...and on a sidenote: following the various threads on various mailinglists, i - for me - came to the conclusion, that i don't like the idea of ULA-C myself anyways. I will be happy with ULA and "PI". -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

There is no way in the PDP to "freeze" a discussion.

Then we either introduce that notion, or we reject this proposal.

In fact keeping the discussion period extended, and just not being pro-active in the discussion may act as a way to "freeze" it, and that's what I'm trying, but emails like this don't help that path.

Instead of claiming that the discussion is extended then simply say that it is frozen. Why try to lie about it by calling it differently?

IANA is just one choice, and as I don't agree is the best one, this is why I'm proposing this policy.

You are currently the only one proposing this policy.

When the next version of the ID is released, then you will see an update of the current policy proposal text.

Then simply FREEZE this current one. Marking it as 'under discussion' is useless as there can't be any discussion about something which is not decided on. JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

The IETF has never rejected this. It was just postponed.

Expired and dropped. Which can be read as rejected. Clearly not enough people in the IETF thought it was useful.

In addition to that, once more, there is nothing in the PDP that precludes for following something that is not IETF RFC, and this has been clear in many emails before this one.

Most people will actually agree with the simple thing that the RIR's should not do anything that the IETF does not want them to do yet.

Actually whoever is stating something like this at this point, in my opinion is trying to manipulate the PDP.

One does not have to take the wordings that literal. Laws are also applied on a per-case basis, as the PDP is sort of a 'law book' in your eyes, consider this one also on this per-case basis. Greets, Jeroen