Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]> wrote: > What is the incentive to request a Spec Required vs. an FCFS? Do you > expect someone will ask for the more difficult choice, when they get > exactly the same result?
1. It's not the same result.
The entity that writes a specification winds up with a Specification.
That can be cited (like, in anotheer RFC), can be placed into RFPs (yes,
trade agreements call them "performance standards"), and can be discovered by
others.
2. Aside from writing the specification, which is certainly more work, it's
essentially the same effort to get the number.
>>> 7. Shall there be a separate range for existing ones (<= 301) instead
>>> of lumping them in FCFS, since some have specification, etc?
>>
>> FCFS space will have uneven amount of specification, which historically
we
>> have had.
> Linking to the first comment, this would further encourage allocation
> requests with specifications to ask for FCFS…
Worse case, in ten years, the FCFS is full. (Maybe full of junk)
And we decide to allocate another 10K numbers to it. Future me problem.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
