Re: Last Call: <draft-housley-number-registries-02.txt> (Internet Number

Geoff,

On Jan 7, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Geoff Huston <gih(_at_)apnic(_dot_)net> wrote:
> In all three cases you are proposing to change "are handled" to "are 
> currently handled"
Yep.

> Could you kindly explain the rationale for this proposed change in wording, 
> as the subtle distinction between the two terms is, I'm afraid, somewhat lost 
> on me.
RFC 7020 describes the Internet Numbers Registry as it exists today and talks 
about the evolution system, indicating that the system "can evolve to meet the 
changing demands of the global Internet community."  As this draft bills itself 
as a companion to 7020, indicating that the various allocation and registration 
functions are _currently_ performed by the RIRs (implying that this might 
change in the future as the system evolves) seems appropriate.  I've found 
(particularly with experiences related to RFC 2050) that is is useful to be 
explicit about the distinction between "current" and an implied "permanent".

Regards,
-drc

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail