Hi Russ,
At 14:34 16-12-2013, Russ Housley wrote:
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.
[snip]
Again, these are saying that exceptions require IETF Review, but
otherwise the policy for these registries is handled by the RIRs.
Thanks for the reply. I read draft-housley-number-registries-02
again. The "which registries have policy set ..." would be the following text:
"The allocation and registration functions for all non-reserved
globally unique unicast IPv4/IPv6 unicast addresses are handled by the
Internet Numbers Registry System in accordance with policies
developed by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)."
The special-propose values are already discussed in RFC
6890. Section 2.2 of that RFC mentions that:
'IANA will update the aforementioned registries as requested in the
"IANA Considerations" section of a document that has passed IETF
Review [RFC5226].'
My reading of the above is that it says that exceptions require IETF
Review. I read Section 3 of RFC 7020:
"In addition, ICANN performs the IANA services related to the IP
address space and AS numbers according to global number resource
policies that have been developed by the community and formalized
under a Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Regional
Internet Registries [ASOMOU] and documented in [ICANNv4], [ICANNv6],
and [ICANNASN]."
That text covers the policy angle.
The Introduction section of the draft mentions "IANA
registries". The quoted paragraph of the reply mentioned that the
"document tells which registries have policy ...". It is difficult
to understand what the draft is about.
Regards,
-sm