Elwyn:
Two points:
Rereading things again, I have another suggestion;
4) Split the Goals of the Internet registry system out of the
Introduction. The Intro starts out talking about the document, its
goals, and what is in scope and out of scope of the document. Then
transitions to
On Mar 20, 2013, at 6:04 PM, SM wrote:
At 12:43 20-03-2013, Elwyn Davies wrote:
This contains some woolly hand-waving weasel words at the end:
I looked up the meaning of weasel words and found the following:
words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific
Hi Russ,
At 08:43 22-03-2013, Russ Housley wrote:
RFC 2050 contains rules that are superseded by RIR policies.
That doesn't explain the label. :-)
This document replaces RFC 2050. Since the publication of RFC 2050,
the Internet Numbers Registry System has changed
significantly. This
Hi John,
At 20:38 20-03-2013, John Curran wrote:
Excellent question; it's my belief that obsoleting RFC2050 would
do that, but perhaps it would be best to make that point more
Yes.
specific in this document?
It may be easier to add text which provides a (simple) explanation
about why RFC
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
Hi, Russ.
Two points:
On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 22:30 -0500, David Farmer wrote:
snip
Rereading things again, I have another suggestion;
4) Split the Goals of the Internet registry system out of the
Introduction. The Intro starts out talking about the document, its
goals, and what is in
I interpret it as anybody.
ISPs, cctlds, governments, gtlds, IETF, RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, you, me.
/as
On 3/20/13 4:43 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
This contains some woolly hand-waving weasel words at the end:
Over the years, the Internet Numbers Registry System has developed
On 3/20/13 14:04 , John Curran wrote:
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
Whops, that escaped. Sorry.
Lets start over.
On 3/20/13 15:51 , David Farmer wrote:
On 3/20/13 14:04 , John Curran wrote:
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
At 12:43 20-03-2013, Elwyn Davies wrote:
This contains some woolly hand-waving weasel words at the end:
I looked up the meaning of weasel words and found the following:
words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific
and meaningful has been said, when in fact
On Mar 20, 2013, at 3:25 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
xxx is obligated to ... wasn't intended as a suggestions for text, but like
I paraphrased the text from the draft above, and I intended it to paraphrase
the the text that needs to be added. The text above quoted from the draft
On Mar 20, 2013, at 4:04 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
I might as well comment quickly about draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00. The draft
is a good effort but it might need more work in my humble opinion.
The intended status is Informational. Is there a reason for that?
The RFC is not
Hi John,
This is an individual comment.
At 16:38 20-03-2013, John Curran wrote:
The RFC is not intended to establish anything new, only to recognize
the existing agreements and practices of the IETF in this area.
Ok. I'll defer to the learned individuals of the IETF in respect to
the
On Mar 20, 2013, at 8:45 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Ok. I'll defer to the learned individuals of the IETF in respect
to the intended status. It is my understanding that the document
also aims to replace BCP 12.
Excellent question; it's my belief that obsoleting RFC2050 would
do that,
While I appreciate the minimalist approach, can we please get one
*phrase* each on what is being referenced, so that people might have
some reason to actually read the reference:
Internet Registries [ASOMOU] and documented in [ICANNv4],
[ICANNv6], and [ICANNASN].
Also, I note that
David:
1) In Section 1, goal #2, Hierarchical Allocation, I believe a reference
the definition in RFC 5226 - Section 4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy
Definitions, should be considered.
We could do so, but I do not believe that the few word in RFC 5226 on
hierarchical allocation improve the
On 3/19/13 14:48 , Russ Housley wrote:
David:
1) In Section 1, goal #2, Hierarchical Allocation, I believe a reference the
definition in RFC 5226 - Section 4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions, should be
considered.
We could do so, but I do not believe that the few word in RFC 5226 on
I am wondering if the draft should mention that Local Internet
Registries (LIRs) may sometimes take the form of National Internet
Registries (NIRs) since this is now a reality in some places?
The current text doesn't exclude such an arrangement, but given
that this draft is an update to
On 3/18/13 6:04 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I am wondering if the draft should mention that Local Internet
Registries (LIRs) may sometimes take the form of National Internet
Registries (NIRs) since this is now a reality in some places?
All of the NIRs I've encountered can be construed as LIRs under
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:20 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 3/18/13 6:04 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I am wondering if the draft should mention that Local Internet
Registries (LIRs) may sometimes take the form of National Internet
Registries (NIRs) since this is now a reality in some
Policy Manual / v1.10 - 13/08/2012
1. Definitions
http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/manual-1
2. IPv4 Addresses
http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/manual-2
etc ...
And it is not administration/control, it is also about service
(language, timezones, etc.)
/as
1) In Section 1, goal #2, Hierarchical Allocation, I believe a
reference the definition in RFC 5226 - Section 4.1. Well-Known IANA
Policy Definitions, should be considered.
2) I also wonder if another appropriate goal would be explicitly
defining the ASN and IP address registries using RFC
Hi Russ,
I have four questions before following the request. Qs below; please answer,
[rfc2050bis-00]
The administrative structures of the Internet Numbers Registry System
described in this document are largely the result of the interaction
of operational practices, existing routing
[cc to routing-discuss...@ietf.org moved to bcc try to keep discussion splay
limited]
Hi,
Speaking for myself as one of the authors:
On Mar 17, 2013, at 5:35 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have four questions before following the request. Qs below; please answer,
A new, I-D, draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt, has been posted. I am writing to
ask for your review.
Russ
= = = = = = = = = =
Filename:draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt
Title: The Internet Numbers Registry System
Creation date: 2013-03-14
Group: Individual
25 matches
Mail list logo
