Thank you for your response. So this draft is not really a draft about routing intent. Its a draft that in effect proposes a rewrite of the IPv4 registry, and potentially the IPv6 address registry. Frankly, in such a light, I'm unhappy that this is a GROW WG document, and I would prefer that this is an IAB document [RFC2860].
And no, I'm not confused any more. I object to this draft. - it is out of scope of GROW's charter - it is arguably part of the IAB's charter (well actually it could be part of the US Department of Commerce's NTIA's scope in the proposed statement of work for the IANA contract, and therefore nothing to do with the IETF any more, but that's yet to be determined in whatever SOW the NTIA decide to go with in the coming weeks with the IANA contract, so I'll sit with historical precedent for the moment and nominate the IAB), and the proposal to rewrite the IANA's IPv4 address registry (and potentially the IANA IPv6 registry) should be handed over to the IAB for their consideration, rather than having this proposal come from an ICANN staff member, where there is some institutional overlap between the IANA contracting entity and the proponent of this work. There is a substantive issue here about precisely what is recorded in these registries, and there is a case to be made for clear simplicity and consistency, as distinct from constant adornment and tinkering in these registries, but as far as I can see this is a matter for the IAB to consider as a matter of registry policy as distinct from the GROW Working Group within the necessarily charter-limited scope of GROW's work. regards Geoff _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
