Hi Geoff,
On 17/08/11 3:19 PM, "Geoff Huston" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 Nothing regarding who the allocations in the IPv4 and IPv6 registry are made to will change. The dates won't change. And for the most part the prefix in the entries won't change. I'm trying, but really struggling, to see this called a re-write. >From an engineering perspective it is just, and only, about signaling routing intent so people who read the registry either with human or machine eyes can transparently see what prefixes are intended to be routed without any ambiguity. This has benefits for the Security efforts in RPKI and elsewhere and for anyone dealing with the burden of an allocation which has fallen under the filtering bus[1]. It makes engineering such structures immensely simpler, and I certainly have an interest in doing that given I will be implementing the RPKI system for ICANN. Transparency in registry also aides in the engineering trust point. eg "is what is represented in the registry a 1:1 of what is produced in RPKI?" [1] Approximately once a month or less I see an operator on a mailing list speak up about how their recently assigned prefix is unusable due to filtering. No silver bullets here.. but everything from the RIR's QA procedures, to better documentation, and clear unambigious registries will help. > 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]. I will open a discussion with the grow chairs and the IAB in regard to this. > > And no, I'm not confused any more. I object to this draft. Actually, since it was clarifying the position in the IANA registries to make the "world a better place" I really thought I would see 2 thumbs up from you. > > - it is out of scope of GROW's charter The GROW charter says: "The purpose of the GROW is to consider the operational problems associated with the IPv4 and IPv6 global routing systems" now I'm confused! (easy to to do I guess ;) > > - it is arguably part of the IAB's charter (well actually it could be part of Possibly. But probably easier as a GROW item. > 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. My institutional relationship at this stage should be considered moot. As per the IETF Note Well I do this work as an IETF contributor and as an engineer implementing systems that arguably will be required by the entire operator community. > > 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 The PRI field is simple. (I don't like complex structures) Putting the more specifics in the registry makes it simpler to use and read. So this is clear simplicity. :) > 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. > Again, a bit of confusion on my part. I thought that the IETF through the working group' documents told the IANA what to put registries and how they are to be structured? If that isn't the case, can someone please point me to the clarifying documentation? Cheers Terry _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
