Liaison statement
Clarifications to IETF Process related to individual drafts and requests for IANA allocation related to IPv6 addressing

State Posted
Posted Date 2018-07-06
From Groups IAB, IETF
From Contact Scott Mansfield
To Groups ITU-T-SG-2, ITU-T-SG-2-Q1
To Contacts ITU
Phil Rushton
Philippe Fouquart
CcThe IAB Chair
Scott Mansfield
The IETF Chair
The IAB Executive Director
Response Contact The IETF Chair
The IAB Chair
The IAB Executive Director
Purpose For action
Deadline 2018-09-05 Action Needed
Attachments (None)
The IETF and Internet Architecture Board (IAB) have become aware of SG2-C97
(contribution to Q1/2 at the upcoming meeting). The contribution contains a
serious misunderstanding of the IETF process and appears to assume that a
document (draft-foglar-ipv6-ull-routing-02.txt) which was never adopted as a
work item has IETF approval. The proposal does not have IETF approval at this
point and is unlikely to garner it in its current form, because it embeds a
privacy-sensitive identifier into the routing system. The IETF has worked
extensively to provide alternatives to identifiers of this type and a new
proposal to embed one would need much further discussion. We also note that the
document would require both a shift to use IANA's allocation methods and a
documented plan on how to release any testing prefix from IANA back to the
global pool, as was done with the 6BONE prefix referenced in C97. Lastly, we
wish to note that the size of the proposed request needs serious
reconsideration. The size of the request is extraordinarily large if the
purpose is to support E.164 addresses currently in use. A /8 provides 2^56 (or
approximately 7x10^16) /64 subnets or approximately 1.3x10^36 ip addresses. The
maximum number of potential E.164 numbers is 1x10^14, indicating a much smaller
test space is needed.

The IETF and IAB would welcome a correspondence activity to work through the
above issues and to foster better understanding of the engagement moving