At 12:43 20-03-2013, Elwyn Davies wrote:
This contains some woolly hand-waving weasel words at the end:
I looked up the meaning of weasel words and found the following:
"words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific
and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim,
or even a refutation has been communicated."
I might as well comment quickly about
draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00. The draft is a good effort but it might
need more work in my humble opinion.
The intended status is Informational. Is there a reason for that?
Why does the document obsolete RFC 2050? There is no explanation for
that in the Abstract or the Introduction section.
In Section 2:
"The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is the traditional
name for the technical team making and publishing the assignments
of Internet protocol technical parameters, including Internet
Protocol (IP) address space."
Is there a reference for that?
"As a result of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)[RFC2860] between
the IETF, IAB, and ICANN, the technical work of the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is now performed by ICANN."
According to RFC 2860:
The memo is "exclusively to define the technical work to be carried
out by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority on behalf of the
Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Research Task Force."
That does not match the "as a result" text.
"Today, IANA administers IP address space and AS numbers according
to global number resource policies as developed per the agreement
between ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries [ASOMOU] and
documented in [ICANNv4], [ICANNv6], and [ICANNASN]."
I don't see what the above has to do with structure (see section title).
In Section 3:
"Reverse DNS: In situations where reverse DNS was used, the
policies and practices of the Internet Numbers Registry System
have included consideration of the technical and operational
requirements posed by reverse DNS zone delegation [RFC3172]."
According to RFC 5855:
"The choice of operators for all nameservers concerned is beyond the
scope of this document and is an IANA function that falls under the
scope of Section 4 of the MoU between the IETF and ICANN [RFC2860]."
Maybe referencing RFC 5855 would be better. It may be easier not to
say anything about reverse DNS.
"Public WHOIS: The policies and practices of the Internet
Numbers Registry System have included consideration of the
technical and operational requirements for supporting WHOIS
services [RFC3013]."
The specification for Whois is RFC 3912. I vaguely recall that the
"policy" text in the previous specification was viewed as problematic
by the IETF.
"Per the delineation of responsibility for Internet address policy
issues specified in the IETF/IAB/ICANN MOU [RFC2860], discussions
regarding the evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System
structure, policy, and processes are to take place within the ICANN
framework and will respect ICANN's core values [ICANNBL]. These core
values encourage broad, informed participation reflecting the
functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all
levels of policy development and decision-making, as well as the
delegation of coordination functions and recognition of the policy
roles of other responsible entities that reflect the interests of
affected parties. The discussions regarding Internet Numbers
Registry evolution must also continue to consider the overall
Internet address architecture and technical goals referenced in this
document."
Could someone please translate the above in plain English? What's
the IETF angle in all that?
What action is required from IANA in Section 7?
Why should I read RFC 6484 to understand draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00?
Regards,
-sm