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]

 



At 13:45 12-05-2013, Tom Vest wrote:
I certainly did not intend to misrepresent your position. But given the fact that the "part of a message" that you reproduced was offered in response to doubts that you yourself raised about the points covered therein (esp. "operational need"), what is your position, exactly? As David said, "to date" the communities have established policies that are broadly informed by the practical implications of the finitude and uniqueness constraints on address resource management. However, to conclude based on past observations that such will always be true would be tantamount to claiming that management of those constraints is assured by the operation of (unspecified self-executing, self-sustaining) principles. Based on your views as expressed in/around draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00, it's pretty clear that you don't see any durable, much less "timeless" principles embodied therein -- but that only makes your position on these matters all the more ambiguous.

I prefer to keep draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01 separate from other drafts to keep matters simple. My position is that it is better to work towards consensus.

Perhaps it would help if you would answer the following clarifying questions:

1. Is it your position that some other force or principle(s) outside of the general mechanisms/practices documented in RFC2050 (and potentially, RFC2050-bis) guarantees that IETF-defined addressing protocols will "just work" as designed, in perpetuity, and thus the informational codification of matters related to the management of finitude and uniqueness constraints is at best unnecessary, at worst counterproductive? If so, what are those unnamed forces/principles, exactly?

2. Is it your position that, if the traditional "communities interested in IP addressing" one day elect to adopt policies that make it impossible for IETF addressing protocols to fulfill even the basic "just work" test, then from the "IETF view" that should be regarded as a perfectly appropriate and acceptable outcome?

I don't have an opinion about questions (1) or (2).

Could you please clarify which passages about Internet address architecture you are suggesting are sufficient to make the sections about distribution and uniqueness constraints unnecessary?

The comment was in a reply to a comment from another person. There wasn't any mention of "distribution and uniqueness constraints" in the quoted text.

Regards,
-sm




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