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

Russ,

On Jan 25, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
> > Perhaps it would make more sense to reference IANA registries instead of 
> > listing the contents of what would be in those registries in the draft text
> I think this is a good idea.  It required a fairly significant update to the 
> document.  I did it in version -03.
Works for me.

> > I find it curious that when talking about top-level domains, the criteria 
> > (according to RFC 6761) for reservation is "Standards Action" or "IESG 
> > Approval" but when talking about reserving Internet Number resources, the 
> > criteria is "IETF Review".  Any idea why there is a discrepancy?
> These three IANA registries require IETF Review.  In fact, that is already 
> documented at the two URLs that you provide above.
Right. The thing I found curious was that special numbers get "IETF Review" 
whereas special names get "Standards Action" or "IESG Approval".  This isn't 
really a comment on your draft per se, just confusion about the discrepancy in 
treatment between these identifiers.

> > "The allocation and registration functions for all non-reserved AS numbers 
> > are currently handled by the Internet Numbers Registry System in accordance 
> > with policies developed via the Regional Internet Registries' (RIRs) public 
> > policy development processes."
> Okay.  I added "public policy development processes" to the end of the 
> sentence.
As Geoff identified, the bit I was more focused on was the "currently", however 
this is a nit I can probably avoid picking.

> How about:
>
> Network operators should take care that special-purpose numbers and
> addresses are used on the public Internet in a manner that is consistent
> with their reserved purpose.
Works for me.

Thanks!

Regards,
-drc

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail