Russ, On Jan 25, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Perhaps it would make more sense to reference IANA registries instead of listing the contents of what would be in those registries in the draft text > I think this is a good idea. It required a fairly significant update to the document. I did it in version -03. Works for me. >> I find it curious that when talking about top-level domains, the criteria (according to RFC 6761) for reservation is "Standards Action" or "IESG Approval" but when talking about reserving Internet Number resources, the criteria is "IETF Review". Any idea why there is a discrepancy? > These three IANA registries require IETF Review. In fact, that is already documented at the two URLs that you provide above. Right. The thing I found curious was that special numbers get "IETF Review" whereas special names get "Standards Action" or "IESG Approval". This isn't really a comment on your draft per se, just confusion about the discrepancy in treatment between these identifiers. >> "The allocation and registration functions for all non-reserved AS numbers are currently handled by the Internet Numbers Registry System in accordance with policies developed via the Regional Internet Registries' (RIRs) public policy development processes." > Okay. I added "public policy development processes" to the end of the sentence. As Geoff identified, the bit I was more focused on was the "currently", however this is a nit I can probably avoid picking. > How about: > > Network operators should take care that special-purpose numbers and > addresses are used on the public Internet in a manner that is consistent > with their reserved purpose. Works for me. Thanks! Regards, -drc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail