On 8 Jan 2014, at 7:03 am, David Conrad <drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Geoff, > > On Jan 7, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Geoff Huston <gih@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> In all three cases you are proposing to change "are handled" to "are currently handled" > > Yep. > >> Could you kindly explain the rationale for this proposed change in wording, as the subtle distinction between the two terms is, I'm afraid, somewhat lost on me. > > RFC 7020 describes the Internet Numbers Registry as it exists today and talks about the evolution system, indicating that the system "can evolve to meet the changing demands of the global Internet community." As this draft bills itself as a companion to 7020, indicating that the various allocation and registration functions are _currently_ performed by the RIRs (implying that this might change in the future as the system evolves) seems appropriate. I've found (particularly with experiences related to RFC 2050) that is is useful to be explicit about the distinction between "current" and an implied "permanent". I'm reminded of a discussion (probably on this list) some time ago when kre reminded me that all RFCs can be updated or obsoleted in the future by subsequent RFCs. I read this draft in a different sense, in that the text in this draft is a description of a here and now state of affairs that will presumably exist in the future until updated or obsoleted by a subsequent RFC, much the same as the fate of RFC2050 I suppose. regards, Geoff