Subject: Comments on static allocation -00

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 19:26:17 -0700 (PDT)

In comparing the document to RFC 1797, I notice that 1797 contains
the word "Experiment" in both the title and in header at the top
of each page.  I wonder if it might be better for this draft
to be titled "Static Allocation Experiment in 233/8" with a page
header of "Multicast Static Allocation Experiment"?

RFC 1797 is referenced in several places.  In my opinion, it
would be helpful to say what RFC 1797 is about, perhaps in
section 5 where it is first mentioned.  For example:
"... in RFC 1797 (which describes the use of 39/8 for
experimenting with subnetted class A addresses):"

Is there a reference for RWhois?  (I noticed that 1797 doesn't
have a reference for it either.)

In section 6, how about adding another sentence right before
6.1 which points out that: for debugging, using the AS number
in this way also allows one to easily identify the owner AS of 
a given multicast address.

Under security considerations, I wonder if some mention
is in order on the possibility that someone else might start
using some or all of the 256 addresses assigned to a given AS?

Besides the typos Steve Hanna pointed out, in section 8
"as" should be inserted after "same spirit".

RFC2374 is listed in the references, but is never referenced
in the draft.  It should either be referenced or removed.

-Dave