Re: Please review draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi, Russ.
Two points:

On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 22:30 -0500, David Farmer wrote:
<snip>
> 
> Rereading things again, I have another suggestion;
> 
> 4) Split the Goals of the Internet registry system out of the 
> Introduction.  The Intro starts out talking about the document, its 
> goals, and what is in scope and out of scope of the document.  Then 
> transitions to talking about the goals of the Internet registry system. 
>   I think the goals of the Internet registry system should be a separate 
> section from the Introduction. And, the Introduction should be expanded 
> to better describe the purpose of the document.

I agree fully with this comment.  The first para of s1 needs a rewrite
and a little expansion to match up with the abstract to form a proper
intro.  The goals do belong in a separate section
> 

Also regarding the first para of s4:

This contains some woolly hand-waving weasel words at the end:

> Over the years, the Internet Numbers Registry System has developed
>    mechanisms by which the structures, policies, and processes of the
>    Internet Numbers Registry System itself can evolve to meet the
>    changing demands of the global Internet community.  Further evolution
>    of the Internet Numbers Registry System is expected to occur in an
>    open, transparent, and broad multi-stakeholder manner.
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Who are these stakeholders?  Is this (just) the organisations named in
the document (I think that would be ICANN/IANA, IETF, *IRs - a large
number!) or is the community to be consulted? and governments?  So do we
have a view as to how all these people are to be informed that some
evolution is needed?

Regards,
Elwyn



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]