Hi John,
This is an individual comment.
At 16:38 20-03-2013, John Curran wrote:
The RFC is not intended to establish anything new, only to recognize
the existing agreements and practices of the IETF in this area.
Ok. I'll defer to the learned individuals of the IETF in respect to
the intended status. It is my understanding that the document also
aims to replace BCP 12.
The explanation is in Section 5 (Summary of Changes Since RFC 2050);
isn't that usual practice for an RFC which replaces another in entirety?
I can only express an individual opinion and not what is usual
practice for an RFC. The few drafts I have read usually had an
explanation in the Introduction section to help the reader. I don't
feel strongly about this. I am more interested in seeing whether the
IESG will file a DISCUSS about this.
By the way the summary of changes is very short.
The text in RFC 5855 that you reference is with respect only to the
two top-level reverse domains, i.e. "all nameservers concerned" is
preceded by:
"1. IN-ADDR-SERVERS.ARPA to the nameservers listed in Section 2;
2. IP6-SERVERS.ARPA to the nameservers listed in Section 3."
I preferred not to quote RFC 5855 in its entity. My reading of that
document and the discussions leading to it is that it is up to the
IAB to provide technical guidance to ICANN about .arpa (re. reverse
DNS). I don't see any mention of "Internet Numbers Registry System"
in RFC 3172 or RFC 5855.
I can only say that in my opinion the omission of the finer details
does not have any negative consequences for the RIRs.
It looks to be plain English to me... can you be more specific
about what part of the text which is problematic?
"Per the delineation of responsibility for Internet address policy
issues specified in the IETF/IAB/ICANN MOU [RFC2860], discussions
regarding the evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System
structure, policy, and processes are to take place within the ICANN
framework and will respect ICANN's core values [ICANNBL]."
How does the above affect the IETF, e.g. what process changes
happened between RFC 2050 and draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00? Why is it
even relevant to the IETF?
"These core values encourage broad, informed participation reflecting
the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at
all levels of policy development and decision-making, as well as the
delegation of coordination functions and recognition of the policy
roles of other responsible entities that reflect the interests of
affected parties."
I do not understand what the above means in practice. The IETF is
having a lengthy discussion about diversity. The IETF community
might learn from ICANN if it shares its experience of how it has
successfully tackled cultural diversity.
"The discussions regarding Internet Numbers Registry evolution must
also continue to consider the overall Internet address architecture
and technical goals referenced in this document."
After reading draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00 it is my understanding
that the Internet Numbers Registry is out of scope for the IETF. I
read the above as meaning that the IETF is telling RIRs and ICANN
that they must also follow technical guidance from the IETF in
respect to the Internet address archtecture.
"The foregoing does not alter the IETF's continued responsibility for
the non-policy aspects of Internet addressing such as the architectural
definition of IP address and AS number spaces and specification of
associated technical goals and constraints in their application, assignment
of specialized address blocks, and experimental technical assignments as
documented in RFC 2860."
The above sounds like something from the legal department. I
unfortunately cannot hire a lawyer to tell me whether that text
matches the text in RFC 2860. I don't see how one can expect
informed participation when the text to be read might be unclear to
the people from the rest of the world.
As an off-topic comment, it seems like there hasn't been careful
review of an IANA policy for ASNs. The wise members of the IESG
would have caught the bug.
By the way I read my previous message [1] again and the reply [2] I
received and I noticed that there wasn't any response to two of the questions.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg78135.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg78141.html