On Mar 20, 2013, at 6:04 PM, SM wrote:
At 12:43 20-03-2013, Elwyn Davies wrote:
This contains some woolly hand-waving weasel words at the end:
I looked up the meaning of weasel words and found the following:
"words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific
and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim,
or even a refutation has been communicated."
I might as well comment quickly about draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00. The draft
is a good effort but it might need more work in my humble opinion.
The intended status is Informational. Is there a reason for that?
RFC 2050 contains rules that are superseded by RIR policies.
Why does the document obsolete RFC 2050? There is no explanation for that in
the Abstract or the Introduction section.
This document replaces RFC 2050. Since the publication of RFC 2050, the
Internet Numbers Registry System has changed significantly. This document
describes the present Internet Numbers Registry System.
In Section 2:
"The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is the traditional
name for the technical team making and publishing the assignments
of Internet protocol technical parameters, including Internet
Protocol (IP) address space."
Is there a reference for that?
RFC 2860 seems to be a fine reference. We could find others, but this seems to
be good enough.
"As a result of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)[RFC2860] between
the IETF, IAB, and ICANN, the technical work of the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is now performed by ICANN."
According to RFC 2860:
The memo is "exclusively to define the technical work to be carried
out by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority on behalf of the
Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Research Task Force."
That does not match the "as a result" text.
"Today, IANA administers IP address space and AS numbers according
to global number resource policies as developed per the agreement
between ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries [ASOMOU] and
documented in [ICANNv4], [ICANNv6], and [ICANNASN]."
I don't see what the above has to do with structure (see section title).
The authors will try to improve the wording. The discussion of IANA should
probably say that IANA represents to top of the IP address and AS number
allocation hierarchies.
In Section 3:
"Reverse DNS: In situations where reverse DNS was used, the
policies and practices of the Internet Numbers Registry System
have included consideration of the technical and operational
requirements posed by reverse DNS zone delegation [RFC3172]."
According to RFC 5855:
"The choice of operators for all nameservers concerned is beyond the
scope of this document and is an IANA function that falls under the
scope of Section 4 of the MoU between the IETF and ICANN [RFC2860]."
Maybe referencing RFC 5855 would be better. It may be easier not to say
anything about reverse DNS.
Thanks.
"Public WHOIS: The policies and practices of the Internet
Numbers Registry System have included consideration of the
technical and operational requirements for supporting WHOIS
services [RFC3013]."
The specification for Whois is RFC 3912. I vaguely recall that the "policy"
text in the previous specification was viewed as problematic by the IETF.
Thanks.
"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]. 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. The discussions regarding Internet Numbers
Registry evolution must also continue to consider the overall
Internet address architecture and technical goals referenced in this
document."
Could someone please translate the above in plain English? What's the IETF
angle in all that?
This points to the policy structure that replaces the rules that were in RFC
2050.
What action is required from IANA in Section 7?
No actions at this time.
Why should I read RFC 6484 to understand draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00?
It should be informative.
Russ