ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Please review draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt

2013-03-20 15:52:06
On 3/20/13 14:04 , John Curran wrote:
On Mar 19, 2013, at 9:30 PM, David Farmer <farmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu> wrote:
I wonder if it wouldn't be appropriate to at least provide some suggestions for 
how this is to be accomplished.  Maybe request that future RFCs related to 
these technical and operational considerations include an applicability 
statement as to the Internet Numbers Registry System, either in a separate 
section or maybe as a sub-section of the IANA Considerations.

This evolution is discussed in Section 4.  Maybe a forward pointer is needed.  
Did you not find Section 4 sufficient?

I saw that, it says;

   In addition, in the cases where the IETF sets technical
   recommendations for protocols, practices, or services which are
   directly related to IP address space or AS numbers, such
   recommendations must be taken into consideration in Internet Numbers
   Registry System policy discussions regardless of venue.

This is good, but I read it as saying the IR system, and the RIR's in 
particular, are obligated to consider the technical recommendations of the IETF 
when making policy.  That is only part of the equation.

I was looking for the other side, "the IETF is obligated to maintain clear, 
relevant, and up to date technical recommendations for the IR system, including how such 
recommendations are intended to apply to the IR system."

David -

   Two points:

   1) Language along the lines of "the IETF is obligated to ..." really
      isn't going to work, as the point of the RFC2050 revision is to
      document existing relationships supporting the Internet Numbers
      Registry System, using pointers to existing source documents to
      the greatest extent possible.  Even if there were 100% agreement
      to the concept, it would not be appropriate to establish it via
      this document which is intended for "Informational" publication.

"xxx is obligated to ..." wasn't intended as a suggestions for text, but like I paraphrased the text from the draft above, and I intended it to paraphrase the the text that needs to be added. The text above quoted from the draft "such recommendations must be taken into consideration..." and I agree with that. I'll note the care in how it is worded, but it seems to flow only IETF to IR Sys

   2) More importantly, who is "the IETF" in such a construct?  Would
      such a task (of periodically pondering if these recommendations
      need updating) fall to the IAB or IESG?  (I hadn't realized that
      they needed extra work... ;-)   I believe that when you consider
      that "we" each individually are the IETF (i.e. all of the folks
      who participate in the working groups and writing drafts) then
      it is clear that any "obligation" to update these technical
      recommendations periodically would fall to those with an interest
      in keeping them current.  You might even say that's what Russ,
      David, Geoff, and I are finally getting around to doing via this
      draft, at least for one of the key documents.



FYI,
/John

Disclaimers:  My views alone.  If you are reading this email long
after publication, this email may be out-of-date and I do not commit
to updating its contents. ;-)






--
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================