SM:
I read draft-housley-number-registries-02. I don't see the purpose of
identifying
IANA registries when there are already registries (e.g. IPv4 Special-Purpose
Address Registry and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry Entries) which can
be used to identify the entries used within the IETF. There is a registry
for IPv4 addresses at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/
It's unlikely that it will be changed as the global IPv4 address pool has run
out. There is a registry for IPv6 addresses at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/
This document tells which registries have policy set by the RIRs. The
special-purpose values are exceptions, and that is why they are named in this
document.
The draft gets into a discussion about a reservation of the numbers. There
isn't anything in the draft which directly identifies IANA registries.
Quoting RFC 7020:
"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]."
Section 2.2 and Section 2.3 of this draft is in contradiction with the above
by getting into the details of the framework.
Again, these are saying that exceptions require IETF Review, but otherwise the
policy for these registries is handled by the RIRs.
By the way, the reference for RFC 7020 and RFC 1112 are missing.
Thanks, I'll fix that.
Russ