John,
On Jan 12, 2013, at 2:21 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
However, I don't think the
section of 2860 that you cite helps very much because there is
another way to read it.
As you know, there are many in both high and low places who choose the
interpretation of 2860 that best fits their particular interests, regardless of
the intent of that document (or, from personal experience, efforts to try to
explain history or reality). As such, I'll repeat: I do not believe it useful
or helpful to go down that particular rat hole.
The more relevant bit:
The IETF still has responsibility for the technical
specification of addresses and the policies that narrowly
implies; other policy issues, including the models for
allocations of addresses to those who will use them, belong to
others.
I believe RFC 2050 does (and did) _not_ address "technical specifications of
addresses", but rather documented (past tense) the then "best current practice"
of policies associated with the operational deployment of those addresses for a
short period around 1995 or so.
The Internet has moved on. The IETF still has the responsibility to define
address technical specifications (e.g., an IPv6 address is 128 bits long),
however I do not believe the IETF now has the responsibility to define
operational deployment policy or processes (if it ever did).
As such, I think it perfectly appropriate to move RFC 2050 to "historic" since,
in fact, it actually is.
If Jon were participating in this conversation today, I'm quite
sure that he would be saying that it is much more important for
the RIRs and the IETF to work together to get the best result
for the Internet rather than putting energy into trying to
legislate or enforce a boundary
I doubt anyone rational would disagree with this, but I don't think that's the
topic of discussion. The issue, as I understand it, is that RFC 2050 is
outdated and historic and its status should be made to reflect that truth.
Regards,
-drc