On 18/05/2013 11:59, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Saturday, May 18, 2013 08:14 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> On 18/05/2013 05:23, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>> I, however, do have one significant objection to the current
>>> draft of the document and do not believe it should be
>>> published (at least as an RFC in the IETF Stream) until the
>>> problem is remedied. The Introduction (Section 1) contains
>>> the sentence "Since the publication of RFC 2050, the Internet
>>> Numbers Registry System has changed significantly."
>> If we want to avoid ratholes built into the document, it might
>> be prudent to rephrase that sentence as
>> "Since the publication of RFC 2050, the environment of the
>> Internet Numbers Registry System has changed."
>
> Both statements are true-- the environment has changed and the
> system has changed. At least in principle, the environment has
> changed less with three three really notable events being the
> advent of ICANN, the end-game of the IPv4 address space, and the
> growing importance of the IPv6 one. I think that can be said
> and the other changes summarized. From my point of view, if we
> have to avoid describing the changes to avoid ratholes, it would
> be legitimate for someone to ask what we are hiding.
>
>>> That sentence is
>>> expanded upon in Section 6, which bears the interesting title
>>> of "Summary of Changes Since RFC 2050". But Section 6
>>> contains no such summary, merely a statement that things have
>>> changed and that some material -- unidentified except by the
>>> broadest of categories -- has been omitted.
>
>> I took that section title to refer to changes *in the text* of
>> 2050, not changes in the system. Maybe the authors could
>> clarify their intent, and if it is limited to text changes,
>> clarify the wording accordingly.
>
> I just checked your hypothesis by looking at a diff between 2050
> and the present draft. As far as I can tell from a quick
> review, there is not a single unchanged paragraph. So, if the
> issue is text changes, this is not an update but an almost
> complete replacement.
Yes, because apart from anything else, the draft leaves out
a number of topics that are explicitly out of IETF scope since
RFC 2860. I don't really see what we are hiding in this:
This document
describes the Internet Numbers Registry System as it presently exists
and omits policy and operational procedures that have been superseded
by ICANN and RIR policy since RFC 2050 publication.
(given that there is a reference to RFC 2860 a few lines earlier).
If I had the edit pen I would probably want to rephrase that
paragraph a bit, but it does say what has been deleted and why.
Brian