The quote provided does not match the wording in the draft. Please,
this argument is vituperative enough. We need to quote accurately.
What the document actually says is that ISP stands for "Internet Service
Provider" (so far, so good. That is what it stands for.) It then goes
on to say "using in the context of this document as an entity
undertaking the role of..."
Similarly, it says that IR is an "Internet Registry".
If it is the intention to assert that Internet Registries are the
resoruce issuers, and ISPs are the resource recipients. Then we should
say that explicitly. If that is not the intention (and Randy is clearly
asking that it not be, and someone responding seemed to be trying to say
that it did not have to be), then we must not use the terms IR and ISP
for those roles. We should not use terms with clear and relevant
existing meanings unless our intention is to deliberately conflate the
meanings.
Yours,
Joel
Randy Bush wrote:
naming of actors in this document still assumes that ISPs are the
children. children might be RIRs (parent IANA), or end sites (parent
ISPs or owning non-end user sites (e.g. business subsidiaries or govt
structures)).
I believe section 1.1 entirely addresses this point. The definition
of IR does not preclude service providers, nor does the definition of
ISP preclude either regional internet registries or end sites.
Summarised, they are:
IR : an entity undertaking the role of resource issuer.
ISP : an entity undertaking the role of resource recipient who is the
subject of a Resource Certificate.
...
these are well-known terms. please leave the goalposts in place.
randy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
