On 2010-01-04, at 21:40, John C Klensin wrote: > Ok, Joe, a few questions since, as indicated in another note, > you are generating these documents in your ICANN capacity: > > (1) If ICANN can re-delegate the servers for these domains > without IAB or IETF action, why is IETF action needed to create > the new names? They are, after all, just names. We talked to people in the IAB about the idea of naming these servers using a consistent scheme under ARPA before we published -00. They were happy with the idea of using names under ARPA and indicated, following a review of 3172, that a standards action was required for the corresponding delegation. > (2) If IETF action is needed at all, why is this coming from you > as an individual submission, rather than as a formal request > from IANA to the IAB, presumably via normal liaison channels? > Ordinarily, and consistent with RFC 3172, this request would > come to the IAB and not via an individual submission to the IESG > since no "protocol entity" is involved? We discussed our plans with people in the IAB, and they advised us that an individual submission internet-draft was an appropriate path to take. We followed their advice. > (3) And why is this being processed as a Proposed Standard > rather than as a BCP (like other documents describing > allocations in .ARPA such as RFC 3152 (BCP49) and 3405 (BCP65)) > or some sort of informational one? Members of the IAB advised us, with reference to RFC 3172, that a standards action document was required because a delegation from ARPA was being requested. > (4) I also note that this document appears to update Section 4 > of RFC 3172 but does not note that. Section 4 of RFC 3172 describes the state of the ARPA zone at the time that 3172 was written. It is my understanding that updating that section with a document today would require access to a time machine, and my colleagues on the third floor indicate that time travel is not considered to be covered by the IANA Functions Contract. > In addition, while that > Section 4 indicates, as of September 2001... > > "...The IAB is working with ICANN, IANA, and the > regional registries to move "arpa" and "in-addr.arpa" > records from the root servers in accord with the RFC > 2870 recommendation for exclusive use of those servers." > > ...the IAB has not been consulted on this issue (at least since > last March). I am not aware of what work was being done in 2001 with respect to redelegation of IN-ADDR.ARPA and ARPA. I can only assume that the intentions documented in 3172 were not followed through for some reason. Joe _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf