Hi David,
At 18:36 10-05-2013, David Conrad wrote:
Sure, but it is also looking towards the remaining few IPv4
allocations that will be made over the next few years.
I am looking at the draft from an IETF perspective. There is IPv4
address space for protocol assignments. It could be said that the
IETF's role is limited to providing guidance on IP architectural and
operational considerations (e.g. RFC 6177). Several years ago some
RIRs adopted policies which were inconsistent with IAB/IESG
recommendations. I suggest leaving IPv4 allocations unrelated to
protocol assignments up to other communities to avoid further inconsistencies.
The fact that the IPv6 address pool is very large does not remove
the fact that it is a not an infinite resource and thus, constraints
must be applied to allocation policy.
The constraints are not set by the IETF. It's up to other
communities to see what constraints, if any, should be applied.
Lacking those constraints, I'm sure you or I could come up with an
allocation policy that would blow through the IPv6 free pool quite
quickly. To date, the communities
Yes. I doubt that you or I would get away with it. :-)
interested in IP addressing have established policies that dictate
"operational needs" should be the primary constraint (as opposed to
say constraining on geo-political boundaries, by ability to pay,
etc). However, the second part of that sentence is saying that pool
limitations at the time of allocation should also be taken into
consideration. Since _at this time_ the IPv6 free pool is quite
large, it would follow that allocation policy constraints would be
minimal (as I believe they are).
InternetNZ wrote a very good message, in my opinion, a few months to
argue for the position it took on a proposal. It applied its
principles to explain its position. I would like to look at this in
terms of principles instead of politics. From the above I see that
communities interested in IP addressing set the policy constraints,
e.g. "operational needs". If it's a policy it cannot be a principle.
I'll suggest alternative text:
1) Allocation Pool: IP addresses and AS numbers are fixed length numbers.
The allocation pools for these number resources are considered as
resources which are finite.
The principle for the above is to avoid set any constraint unless it
is necessary for IETF protocols to work.
True. The document is documenting current practices and policies. At
this point in time, I'm unaware of a global privacy practice or
policy that is applicable to all levels of the Internet Numbers
Registry System.
> Is it up to the IETF to set up a one-stop shop for personal data requests?
I suspect not, but I suspect it isn't up to the IETF to dictate
global privacy policy either.
Section 2 is about the goals for distributing number resources (re.
first sentence). I suggest removing the third goal as it might be a
matter of global (or other) policy. It also makes privacy a
non-issue as there isn't any relationship between it and the goals.
In Section 5:
"The discussions regarding Internet Numbers Registry evolution must
also continue to consider the overall Internet address architecture
and technical goals referenced in this document."
I'll wordsmith this:
It is expected that discussions regarding Internet Numbers
Registry evolution
will continue to consider the overall Internet address architecture and
goals mentioned in this document.
I removed the "must".
I noticed the following in Section 5:
"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."
The text does not add any value as "must be taken into consideration"
does mean anything. The IETF publishes recommendations which people
can elect to follow or ignore. If one believes that it is important
to consider technical recommendations the person or organization can
try and convince the appropriate venue to state that.
Regards,
-sm