Stephen and Matt,
I raise the following after reading sidr-arch-06 in light of the
recent rescerts and ta draft versions.
Section 2.5 ERX.
With the recent change in suggested TA behaviours (the ETA and RTA)
I'm not sure I see any reason to have the multiple CAs as represented.
The RTA allows the *IR to grow or shrink the resource holdings in the
RTA without having to adjust the RP TA (ETA). Wouldn't it be far
simpler to make the transfers (ERX and others to come) an
administrative function and co-ordination between the TA organisations
at that level where resources are listed in the 3779 attributes
following the paradigm that no two TA organisations can be
authoritative for the same information? (in that model)
Also thinking to the future of more transfer arrangements, following
recent RIR policy processes. (while not specifically an IETF issue,
has flow on effect)
Additionally, the structure proposed implies to me that the ERX block
would go back to the originated RIR if relinquished (handed back) by
the holder. I'm not clear that this is the case. Last time I traversed
the policy on this I thought the resource remained with the _current_
RIR for reallocation. (but could be wrong - I couldn't find anything
in the ERX faqs @ the RIR websites to confirm/deny)
If you do maintain this structure, the description for the diagram
(figure 1) says "EXR" not "ERX".
Cheers
Terry
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
