Re: Last Call: <draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt> (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC

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

 



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




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