-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The architecture draft goes through all the possibilities, but does
not introduce the "Internet Registry" as the generic term.
RFC 2050 does (The Internet Registry system) , maybe a ref. is enough.
Given the potential confusion on the part of some, it might be best
to inject a parenthetical "(RIR, NIR, LIR/ISP)" in any doc that uses
the generic term.
But the question still stands, I think. Some entities that receive
addresses are not RIR/NIR/LIR. Or so I believe. Is an enterprise
that receives address space considered a registry, even if it does
not sub-allocate?
In the "registry policy" world, they are called "End Users".
Why we do not just use the term: "Certificate Holders", independently
of where they are in the hierarchy?
Roque
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAkkluXIACgkQnk+WSgHpbO5BzQCgql5e+j0EtAC+isZfpiL8lkij
ZOEAniwEMI+0oL0CoIwYNHKibmq7xjCV
=wa0e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
