2007/631 Class E IP Address Configuration

[Nicolas Williams]

On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:48:38AM -0500, James Carlson wrote:
> Nicolas Williams writes:
> > You could wait until the IESG issues the protocol action placing the I-D
> > on the Standards Track, rather than waiting for it to be an RFC.
> 
> I disagree with that in general.  We *SHOULD* be implementing things
> that are the subject of I-Ds.  That's exactly what I-Ds are for --
> getting agreement among implementors.

I wrote "could".

> > In any case, there are *two* unexpired, individual submission I-Ds on
> > this topic.  Both have "I-D Exists" as their status.  That is definitely
> > not enough.  The ARC should at least wait for there to be an AD
> 
> No.  As long as there's consensus on the subset of functionality that
> this project is proposing, I see no real problems here.

Having an AD shepherd would be fairly indicative of consensus, but yes,
consensus should be sufficient in this case given that the technical
details are so simple.