Re: [Ianaplan] making ARPA explicit (Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

Yes, .ARPA was left out and needs to be put in.



On Nov 5, 2014, at 4:24 PM, Olaf Kolkman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> 
>> Draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.txt
>> 
>> Please send comments to the list.
> 
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> I have two suggestions about .ARPA. Apologies for not bringing this up earlier and potentially overlooking previous discussion on list (there are some hints of similar thoughts on the list, but no concrete suggestions for inclusion).
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Identifying the activity.
> 
> CONTEXT:
>>>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
>>>> affected.
> 
> 
>   IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries.
> 
> 
> 
> OLD:
>  IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries.
> 
> NEW:
>  IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries including the .ARPA domain.
> ALTERNATIVE:
>  IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries and the .ARPA domain.
> 
> MOTIVATION:
> Make explicit that the .ARPA domain is an integral part of the IETF side of the plan. The contracts mentions the protocol parameters separately from the .ARPA domain and this intends to avoid confusion upstream. I tend to think of .ARPA domain as being a protocol parameter registry with an alternative publication mechanism, hence the ‘including’ but ‘and’ may be more clear.
> 
> 
> The same modification can be made other parts of the document. I leave that trade-off to the editors.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. .ARPA as an interdependency.
> 
> I am less sure about this suggestion than the above.
> 
> Context:
>>>> 
>>>> A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your
>>>> IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer
>>>> communities
> 
> 
> A new bullet point that communicates that we rely on the names side of the IANA house for delegation to the parameter operator and that the number communities rely on further delegation (in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa) could be added?
> 
> 
> In addition 
> 
> Context:
>  To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to transition
>   to another operator, the IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental
>   agreement that-
> 
> you may want to add:
> 
> 3. requires the redelegation of the .ARPA domain to the subsequent operators.
> 
> 
> 
> —Olaf
> 
> — — — — — — — — — — 
> Olaf Kolkman
> (on personal title)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan