Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 01 November 2014 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C594F1A039F for <>; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7PQqbQhj3rgb for <>; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A0D71A03A2 for <>; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z10so9244995pdj.29 for <>; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 12:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=UxBiDV9WfdBwwgANzDGW9ECV3p41fo/SNvuN3VMKsrk=; b=cqTy8j6MUp1Ha0LutaOQc69E/XFw4ynpN/rbb1P6WSrCDvPP09NCxLbviiSEMJpTw7 uPTqScCEhng01qUCtgVaZtModF2WMRRnAS5ReJ4JU/BK93sMvthZOAm6tWnFPvpD25pL e4qL1t+1F8nn/M3Oj/clqn7dIuGzMMXfk5wZJlG/JslbFX+EKog8AVi7dvk4YIoCV06M GF/Yu/hJfJseSzsnuy3I3HY6Ok9N+fIJ09bdYpj7PBL54B4pGpwk9vSqu8WBVerysfyd GjPfU81Kquu9FiONIryoo0sQGgDX8ZqqsVwI5xD4lMn1/JmxBdR+jzLL6PNGwtRP2Fhn aLLw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id ok2mr32873598pdb.33.1414870940702; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 12:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id qc8sm13154427pdb.70.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 01 Nov 2014 12:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:42:15 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Conrad <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:, Andrew Sullivan <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 19:42:23 -0000

On 02/11/2014 06:53, David Conrad wrote:
> Andrew,
> On Nov 1, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan <> 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.