| Tobias:
Thanks for the review. Really, the delegation id to the RIRs. which in turn use the ICANN ASO to establish global policy.
Thanks again, Russ
On May 16, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
Hi,
I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer
for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate
).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01
Title: The Internet Numbers Registry System
Reviewer: Tobias Gondrom
Review Date: May-16
Status: Informational
Summary: I believe the draft is ready for publication.
Review:
0. The document is well written and I very much like that the
document is short and concise.
Comments:
1. One of two key sentences I took from the document is that its
self-described scope is "only documenting" the status quo. See
Section 1: "does not propose any changes...., but it does provide
information about the current... system".
When reading this, one question the reader might consider is
whether to agree with this scope-self-limitation.
For my review, I followed this set scope, so the question is then
only does the ID reflect reality and provide sufficient
information. My answer to that is "yes".
2. And the second key sentence is from section 5:
... "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]."
So basically fully delegating that responsibility to ICANN.
Personally IMHO, I would like to encourage the editors and the
IETF to actually take a more strategic and pro-active approach and
consider also whether any guided changes beyond status quo could
improve the situation.
Are our assumptions for the current system still true? Can we
reflect about why certain aspects are as they are and whether we
can learn from the past about any improvements we should actively
explore or consider? A pro-active review of the overall situation
including #1 and #2 might be useful?
Best regards, Tobias
|