On Mar 20, 2013, at 6:04 PM, SM wrote: > 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? RFC 2050 contains rules that are superseded by RIR policies. > Why does the document obsolete RFC 2050? There is no explanation for that in the Abstract or the Introduction section. This document replaces RFC 2050. Since the publication of RFC 2050, the Internet Numbers Registry System has changed significantly. This document describes the present Internet Numbers Registry System. > 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? RFC 2860 seems to be a fine reference. We could find others, but this seems to be good enough. > "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). The authors will try to improve the wording. The discussion of IANA should probably say that IANA represents to top of the IP address and AS number allocation hierarchies. > 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. Thanks. > "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. Thanks. > "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? This points to the policy structure that replaces the rules that were in RFC 2050. > What action is required from IANA in Section 7? No actions at this time. > Why should I read RFC 6484 to understand draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00? It should be informative. Russ