On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 3:14 AM Joe Abley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Tobias, > > On 1 Apr 2025, at 08:43, Tobias Fiebig <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I know I have a thing for picking stuff like this... but... > > > > What does the list think about taking a shot at some revisions to > > RFC1930/BCP6? I would argue that this is somewhat in-scope for GROW. > > > > Specifically, I'd argue that it might make sense to revisit the strict > > multi-homed requirement; As of now, iirc, the only RIR requiring that > > is RIPE. > > RFC 1930 was written in 1996. The five modern RIRs were variously formed > between 1992 and 2004, and the NRO was established in 2003. ICANN was > founded in 1998. > > The concept of "internet governance" as it applies to number resources is > quite different today than it was when RFC 1930 was written. The RIRs all > have established roles and processes around policy, they collaborate > together under the umbrella of the NRO and the roles of ICANN and the ASO > in all of this are more clearly understood. > > RFC 1930 is documentation of historical consensus, and it contributes to > policy in 2025 rather than specifying it. The kind of policy I mean is more > commonly developed in other organisations and communities today than the > IETF. > > It's not clear to me how grow spending time on this would be useful, given > that context. Changing the status of 1930 or replacing it with another > document (or both) unilaterally seems far more likely to cause headaches > than clarity. > BCP 6 is more than just RFC 1930; it includes RFC 6996 and RFC 7300. Together, they accomplish more than just documentation of historical consensus regarding the assignment policy for Autonomous System Numbers; they also define the purpose of an Autonomous System and make reservations for specific purposes. An update to RFC 1930 should remove the assignment policy aspects, which are now handled by the RIR's policy processes, leaving the definition of an Autonomous System, its relationship to prefixes, and the reservations for specific purposes. The appropriate status for such an update can be determined later. It can be challenging for novices to distinguish the assignment policies in RFC 1930 from the more definitional aspects of Autonomous Systems. Therefore, an update formally separating these and referring assignment policies to the RIRs seems appropriate. Thanks. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected] Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
