Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 16 May 2013 21:21 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F68621F8A4E; Thu, 16 May 2013 14:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4cvmqkSUmiW3; Thu, 16 May 2013 14:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E37F21F8F3E; Thu, 16 May 2013 14:21:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C9C6F24070; Thu, 16 May 2013 17:21:34 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4yallx-XCW1w; Thu, 16 May 2013 17:21:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.109] (pool-96-241-163-208.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.163.208]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F13AF2406E; Thu, 16 May 2013 17:21:33 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-73--409934570
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <519547F2.20100@gondrom.org>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 17:21:29 -0400
Message-Id: <52506592-DBD1-485F-9EDD-39407B4887A4@vigilsec.com>
References: <519547F2.20100@gondrom.org>
To: Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org, =?utf-8?Q?draft-housley-rfc2050bis=E2=80=8B=2Eall?=@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 21:21:37 -0000

Tobias:

Thanks for the review.  Really, the delegation id to the RIRs. which in turn use the ICANN ASO to establish global policy.

Thanks again,
  Russ


On May 16, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:

> Hi, 
> 
> I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01
> Title: The Internet Numbers Registry System
> Reviewer: Tobias Gondrom
> Review Date: May-16
> 
> Status: Informational
> 
> Summary: I believe the draft is ready for publication. 
> 
> Review: 
> 0. The document is well written and I very much like that the document is short and concise.
> 
> Comments: 
> 1. One of two key sentences I took from the document is that its self-described scope is "only documenting" the status quo. See Section 1: "does not propose any changes...., but it does provide information about the current... system". 
> When reading this, one question the reader might consider is whether to agree with this scope-self-limitation. 
> For my review, I followed this set scope, so the question is then only does the ID reflect reality and provide sufficient information. My answer to that is "yes". 
> 
> 2. And the second key sentence is from section 5:
> ...  "specified in the IETF/IAB/ICANN MOU [RFC2860], discussions regarding the evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System structure, policy, and processes are to take place within the ICANN framework and will respect ICANN's core values [ICANNBL]." So basically fully delegating that responsibility to ICANN.
> 
> Personally IMHO, I would like to encourage the editors and the IETF to actually take a more strategic and pro-active approach and consider also whether any guided changes beyond status quo could improve the situation. 
> Are our assumptions for the current system still true? Can we reflect about why certain aspects are as they are and whether we can learn from the past about any improvements we should actively explore or consider? A pro-active review of the overall situation including #1 and #2 might be useful?
> 
> Best regards, Tobias
> 
> 
> 
>