Whops, that escaped. Sorry.
Lets start over.
On 3/20/13 15:51 , David Farmer wrote:
On 3/20/13 14:04 , John Curran wrote:
On Mar 19, 2013, at 9:30 PM, David Farmer <farmer@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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?
I saw that, it says;
In addition, in the cases where the IETF sets technical
recommendations for protocols, practices, or services which are
directly related to IP address space or AS numbers, such
recommendations must be taken into consideration in Internet Numbers
Registry System policy discussions regardless of venue.
This is good, but I read it as saying the IR system, and the RIR's in
particular, are obligated to consider the technical recommendations
of the IETF when making policy. That is only part of the equation.
I was looking for the other side, "the IETF is obligated to maintain
clear, relevant, and up to date technical recommendations for the IR
system, including how such recommendations are intended to apply to
the IR system."
David -
Two points:
1) Language along the lines of "the IETF is obligated to ..." really
isn't going to work, as the point of the RFC2050 revision is to
document existing relationships supporting the Internet Numbers
Registry System, using pointers to existing source documents to
the greatest extent possible. Even if there were 100% agreement
to the concept, it would not be appropriate to establish it via
this document which is intended for "Informational" publication.
"xxx is obligated to ..." wasn't intended as a suggestions for text, but
like I paraphrased the text from the draft above, and I intended it to
paraphrase the the text that needs to be added. The text above quoted
from the draft "...such recommendations must be taken into
consideration..." and I agree with that. I'll note the care in how it
is worded, but it seems to flow only from IETF to IR System.
Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive to the "must" in "...such
recommendations must be taken into consideration...". But, it seems to
me that this says IR System must defer judgements on technical issues to
the IETFs technical recommendations, even if they are old, crufty, and
been left in dust by the march of technology.
2) More importantly, who is "the IETF" in such a construct? Would
such a task (of periodically pondering if these recommendations
need updating) fall to the IAB or IESG? (I hadn't realized that
they needed extra work... ;-) I believe that when you consider
that "we" each individually are the IETF (i.e. all of the folks
who participate in the working groups and writing drafts) then
it is clear that any "obligation" to update these technical
recommendations periodically would fall to those with an interest
in keeping them current. You might even say that's what Russ,
David, Geoff, and I are finally getting around to doing via this
draft, at least for one of the key documents.
This is a common problem of community based, we are them they are us,
type pseudo-organizations.
FYI,
/John
Disclaimers: My views alone. If you are reading this email long
after publication, this email may be out-of-date and I do not commit
to updating its contents. ;-)
All I ask is you admit you changed you mind, you have the right to do
that. But, when the IETF changes it's mind by changing its consensus,
then it needs to deprecate its old technical recommendations, or make
sure everyone else is free to ignore the recommendations.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: farmer@xxxxxxx
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================