On Mar 19, 2013, at 9:30 PM, David Farmer <far...@umn.edu> wrote:
>>> I wonder if it wouldn't be appropriate to at least provide some suggestions
>>> for how this is to be accomplished. Maybe request that future RFCs related
>>> to these technical and operational considerations include an applicability
>>> statement as to the Internet Numbers Registry System, either in a separate
>>> section or maybe as a sub-section of the IANA Considerations.
>>
>> This evolution is discussed in Section 4. Maybe a forward pointer is
>> needed. Did you not find Section 4 sufficient?
>
> I saw that, it says;
>
> In addition, in the cases where the IETF sets technical
> recommendations for protocols, practices, or services which are
> directly related to IP address space or AS numbers, such
> recommendations must be taken into consideration in Internet Numbers
> Registry System policy discussions regardless of venue.
>
> This is good, but I read it as saying the IR system, and the RIR's in
> particular, are obligated to consider the technical recommendations of the
> IETF when making policy. That is only part of the equation.
>
> I was looking for the other side, "the IETF is obligated to maintain clear,
> relevant, and up to date technical recommendations for the IR system,
> including how such recommendations are intended to apply to the IR system."
David -
Two points:
1) Language along the lines of "the IETF is obligated to ..." really
isn't going to work, as the point of the RFC2050 revision is to
document existing relationships supporting the Internet Numbers
Registry System, using pointers to existing source documents to
the greatest extent possible. Even if there were 100% agreement
to the concept, it would not be appropriate to establish it via
this document which is intended for "Informational" publication.
2) More importantly, who is "the IETF" in such a construct? Would
such a task (of periodically pondering if these recommendations
need updating) fall to the IAB or IESG? (I hadn't realized that
they needed extra work... ;-) I believe that when you consider
that "we" each individually are the IETF (i.e. all of the folks
who participate in the working groups and writing drafts) then
it is clear that any "obligation" to update these technical
recommendations periodically would fall to those with an interest
in keeping them current. You might even say that's what Russ,
David, Geoff, and I are finally getting around to doing via this
draft, at least for one of the key documents.
FYI,
/John
Disclaimers: My views alone. If you are reading this email long
after publication, this email may be out-of-date and I do not commit
to updating its contents. ;-)
