Re: Support for 240/4 and 0/8 addresses in NetBSD

[Seth David Schoen <schoen%loyalty.org@localhost>]

Greg Troxel writes:

> I would have expected them to be standards-track and come from a WG or
> perhaps the Internet Area (which seems like a pseudo WG with the same
> kind of stature).  Then it would have been draft-intarea-foo, though.
> And I think you are saying it isn't that.

These were drafted and proposed as items for the intarea WG (which has
the same name as the Internet Area at IETF), but they haven't been
adopted as work items by that WG.  I believe the current convention is
still to put the lead author's name before the (adopted or proposed) WG
name, even if the WG adopts it as a work item.

Independent submissions that are explicitly intended for publication
as independent submissions are not initially treated differently in the
IETF data tracker but may be named differently (without mentioning a WG
name at all, for example), and then go through this process

https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/

also eventually ending up with different boilerplate language at the
beginning (although I'm not sure at what stage they get that language).

> > But again, if people disagree or aren't comfortable with that, sysctls
> > and opt-in are a time-honored approach.
> 
> I think that is what we are landing on; there have been several comments
> (including me) that we shouldn't change given the lack of
> standardization, and I haven't seen any in favor of just changing.   So
> I think the next step is someone who cares enough to spend time (not
> trying to be unkind; that's just how it is) to create a patch that adds
> sysctls and changes behavior based on them.  As you say that lets any
> admin change the behavior, and if this is later draft standard we can
> change the default and later gc the sysctl.

I'll be happy to do that, and I can follow the model of the FreeBSD patch,
where the sysctl is also off by default.