SM: > I read draft-housley-number-registries-02. I don't see the purpose of identifying > IANA registries when there are already registries (e.g. IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry Entries) which can be used to identify the entries used within the IETF. There is a registry for IPv4 addresses at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ It's unlikely that it will be changed as the global IPv4 address pool has run out. There is a registry for IPv6 addresses at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/ This document tells which registries have policy set by the RIRs. The special-purpose values are exceptions, and that is why they are named in this document. > The draft gets into a discussion about a reservation of the numbers. There isn't anything in the draft which directly identifies IANA registries. Quoting RFC 7020: > > "Per the delineation of responsibility for Internet address policy > issues 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]." > > Section 2.2 and Section 2.3 of this draft is in contradiction with the above by getting into the details of the framework. Again, these are saying that exceptions require IETF Review, but otherwise the policy for these registries is handled by the RIRs. > By the way, the reference for RFC 7020 and RFC 1112 are missing. Thanks, I'll fix that. Russ