Tobias: Thanks for the review. Really, the delegation id to the RIRs. which in turn use the ICANN ASO to establish global policy.
Thanks again, Russ On May 16, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Tobias Gondrom wrote: > Hi, > > I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this > draft (for background on appsdir, please see > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ). > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may > receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before > posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01 > Title: The Internet Numbers Registry System > Reviewer: Tobias Gondrom > Review Date: May-16 > > Status: Informational > > Summary: I believe the draft is ready for publication. > > Review: > 0. The document is well written and I very much like that the document is > short and concise. > > Comments: > 1. One of two key sentences I took from the document is that its > self-described scope is "only documenting" the status quo. See Section 1: > "does not propose any changes...., but it does provide information about the > current... system". > When reading this, one question the reader might consider is whether to agree > with this scope-self-limitation. > For my review, I followed this set scope, so the question is then only does > the ID reflect reality and provide sufficient information. My answer to that > is "yes". > > 2. And the second key sentence is from section 5: > ... "specified in the IETF/IAB/ICANN MOU [RFC2860], discussions regarding > the evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System structure, policy, and > processes are to take place within the ICANN framework and will respect > ICANN's core values [ICANNBL]." So basically fully delegating that > responsibility to ICANN. > > Personally IMHO, I would like to encourage the editors and the IETF to > actually take a more strategic and pro-active approach and consider also > whether any guided changes beyond status quo could improve the situation. > Are our assumptions for the current system still true? Can we reflect about > why certain aspects are as they are and whether we can learn from the past > about any improvements we should actively explore or consider? A pro-active > review of the overall situation including #1 and #2 might be useful? > > Best regards, Tobias > > > >
