> > I'd like the proposal to at least acknowledge that coordination with > > other organisations will be necessary. I also wonder what happens if > > the RIRs all get together and create a registry, but the IETF and/or > > IANA decides to contract the function out to some other party. I also > > wonder what happens if multiple independent organisations all decide > > "let's start a ULA registry" but don't know about each other and don't > > talk to each other. > > There is a starting point here: The IETF work is going to be advanced in > parallel with the PDP process, but IETF always instructs IANA, and IANA > always allocate to the RIRs. If that is going to change, the problem here > is a different one, not just for this policy, I guess ? > > Actually one of my reasons for doing this policy proposal (in addition to > the need for this ULA-central allocations) is to avoid the risk of *other* > authorities different from the RIRs to take care of this (could be IANA > itself, but what I understood from them is that they don't have interest if > the RIRs do the job).
I don't see how this policy will oblige IETF and/or IANA to give this job to RIRs. If we want the RIRs to this job, then let talk about the operational issues regarding adding the ULA-central registry services to the current ones. Geoff raised some interesting points, we can use as starter. And if we don't have to, i will like to hear from the RIRs. --alain _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
