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

Whops, that escaped.  Sorry.

Lets start over.

On 3/20/13 15:51 , David Farmer wrote:
> 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 from IETF to IR System.
Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive to the "must" in "...such 
recommendations must be taken into consideration...". But, it seems to 
me that this says IR System must defer judgements on technical issues to 
the IETFs technical recommendations, even if they are old, crufty, and 
been left in dust by the march of technology.
> >    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.
This is a common problem of community based, we are them they are us, 
type pseudo-organizations.
> > 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. ;-)
All I ask is you admit you changed you mind, you have the right to do 
that.  But, when the IETF changes it's mind by changing its consensus, 
then it needs to deprecate its old technical recommendations, or make 
sure everyone else is free to ignore the recommendations.

--
================================================
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
================================================