Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 1, 2014, at 7:42 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> ...
> 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.

I actually think we have been doing a pretty good job of policy 
coordination when it comes IETF and the Internet numbers registries.
There have been lots of small issues that have arisen over the years 
(special purpose addresses, documentation prefixes, transition blocks) 
all of which have been worked out, and often with specific coordination
efforts, i.e. folks from both communities attending others meetings.
While the initial IPv6 address format could have benefited by having
more operator input incorporated, that lack can probably be claimed
for most aspects of IP next generation design process (as opposed to 
being the result of any lack of coordination among policy bodies.)

I do think it is worth documenting the need for good coordination 
between the IETF and delegated registries, predominantly because 
the RFP does specifically ask about independencies and good policy 
coordination keeps the IANA operator(s) an administrative function
rather than becoming an arbitration role.

/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.