On 18/08/2011, at 9:40 AM, Terry Manderson wrote: > 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. >
I notice you say here "for the most part." Terry, either the entries will change or they won't. According to your responses in this thread the document is to be interpreted as saying "This documents instructs the IANA to change the contents of these registries, but this document not going to disclose the precise nature of the directed change." This is unacceptable to me in terms of forming a clear instruction to the IANA. Secondly, if the registry contents will be altered in any way than frankly the GROW WG is not the appropriate body to review such proposed changes. I have previously stated that from my perspective and experience the appropriate entity with the IETF menagerie is the IAB. My view is unchanged. regards, Geoff _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
