David: > 1) In Section 1, goal #2, "Hierarchical Allocation", I believe a reference the definition in RFC 5226 - Section 4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions, should be considered. We could do so, but I do not believe that the few word in RFC 5226 on hierarchical allocation improve the understanding of IP address allocation being discussed here. > 2) I also wonder if another appropriate goal would be explicitly defining the ASN and IP address registries using RFC 5226 language including the formal linkage to ICANN and the RIRs as the mechanism for IANA to implementing the Hierarchical Allocation of these registries. See: RFC 5226, section 4.3. "Updating IANA Guidelines for Existing Registries" > > The intention wouldn't be to override RFC 2860, ICANN Policy, or IR global policy, but to provide and explicit formal technical definition for these registries that really have only been implicitly defined to date as far as I can tell. There are any number of other registries that are far less important overall, that have excellent formal technical definitions that comply with RFC 5226 or its predecessors. However, these our most important registries have no such formal technical definitions, I think its really time to fix this situation. > > That said, to the greatest extent possible we need a formal technical definition compliant with RFC 5226 of the as-is-state, not of the want-it-to-be-state. Or, if I'm incorrect and there are formal technical definitions for these registries that comply with RFC 5226, or its predecessors, then they should be referenced in this document. The top of the IPv6 Address Registry says: The IPv6 address management function was formally delegated to IANA in December 1995 [RFC1881]. The registration procedure was confirmed with the IETF Chair in March 2010. RFC 1881 is short, but it seems to say the things that need to be said. > 3) The last paragraph of Section 3, "Internet Numbers Registry Technical Considerations" Says; > > As the Internet and the Internet Numbers Registry System continue to > evolve, it may be necessary for the Internet community to examine > these and related technical and operational considerations and how > best to meet them. > > I wonder if it wouldn't be appropriate to at least provide some suggestions for how this is to be accomplished. Maybe request that future RFCs related to these technical and operational considerations include an applicability statement as to the Internet Numbers Registry System, either in a separate section or maybe as a sub-section of the IANA Considerations. This evolution is discussed in Section 4. Maybe a forward pointer is needed. Did you not find Section 4 sufficient? Russ