On 5/22/14, 10:05 AM, Joe Abley wrote: > William and I have heard the suggestion that we should add 112 to > this registry. A convenient mechanism for doing so would be to add > some IANA considerations to rfc6304bis.
start from first principles. the resource holder is the DNS-OARC which has a street address you and I recognize. if the OARC wan't to assign the resource to IANA they can inidicate that, we can then direct iana to manage it as part of the registry via a standards action. > 7249 is not particularly clear on what "special" means. AS 112 is not > special from a protocol perspective; it's just another origination > point for prefixes on the Internet, and in that sense is the same as > AS 701, etc. Special I interpret as process by which the registry is managed directing iana to add the resource to the registry, e.g. the process defines them as special, as opposed to ordinary resource holders in the registry system. > On the other hand, AS 112 *is* special in the sense that it > corresponds to a specific architecture service that has been > described in the IETF, and one which is not controlled operationally > by any single entity, and AS 112 really shouldn't be used for > anything else. though in this particular case there is a resource holder even if that resource holder is an informalry constructed entity. > So, same basic question as before: given that rfc6304bis is already > in wglc, do we think it's worthwhile adding a sentence to the text to > request the IANA to add 112 to the "Special-Purpose AS Numbers" > registry? > > > Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing > list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
