Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 02/11/2014 06:53, David Conrad wrote:
> Andrew,
> 
> On Nov 1, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Additions to the registry require either Standards Action or IESG
>> Approval, which is a high bar.  
> 
> Given the IETF has delegated administration via RFC 2860, I would have thought it useful to formally include the delegatee in discussions related to the resource (either domain names or IP addresses) being discussed, not just have the decision be solely dependent on the IESG's opinion. 

Trying to go up a level, what I see here is a very senior member of
our wider community (that would be Mr Conrad) telling us of at least
two cases (the recent RFC 6761, and the ancient blunder of IPv6
Top Level Aggregation, RFC 2374) where he feels that the IETF side of
the house did not in practice consult adequately with the registry or
operators sides of the house. And if he feels that, then it's true
by definition: we didn't consult enough, period.

We fixed the TLA issues by changing the IPv6 specs before any harm
was done. I have no doubt we can fix the RFC 6761 issue too, if
it proves harmful.

There's a lesson there for us, and it isn't one that improving the
text of the current draft will resolve, although I do like Suzanne's
proposed text. If the IETF (or IESG or IAB) gets too wrapped up in
itself, we will screw up.

    Brian