Hi Geoff,
On 18/08/11 10:22 AM, "Geoff Huston" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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." I see a difference between precise and explicit. Precise is covered as there is sufficent instruction to tell IANA what to do. Explicit is not as the IPv6 and IPv4 registries are subject to change from other entities, ie As RIRs are allocated address blocks. > > This is unacceptable to me in terms of forming a clear instruction to the > IANA. To help, I will come back to the list soon with a full synthesized IPv4 registry based on what it looks like today. That includes PRI and and entries for the more specific reserved prefixes. This can augment the understanding from the example in the draft. > > 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. > This to me then suggests that any change or creation of/in any IANA registry should be an IAB document. That seems at odds to what I know is current process. (not that I am an ietf process expert by any means) Still confused. Cheers Terry _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
