Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01

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

On 27/10/2014 11:21, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> On 25 October 2014 01:35, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>
>> "The protocol parameter registries are the product of IETF work.”
>>
>> This seems like an under-specified answer. For example, the IP address
>> space registries could certainly be considered to be the product of IETF
>> work. But I did not think it was the intent to cover them in this
>> transition plan document. I apologize if there has been discussion of this
>> on the list that I missed, but I feel like the answer to this question is
>> specifically our opportunity to explain exactly what is covered by this
>> particular transition plan, and “the product of IETF work” is a rather
>> vague answer.
>>
>>
>> Alissa, I agree that it is under-specified.
> 
> There was some prior discussion of the point about the IP address space and
> I thought that a general agreement was that the IETF created the numbering
> space and identified part of it (global unicast) for allocation via the
> Internet Number Registry System. Which to me means that it indeed should be
> considered as a protocol parameter registry. 

This is unambiguously true for the IPv6 address regitstry.

It is less clear for the IPv4 address registry, which predated the
existence of the IETF; therefore the language would have to be
quite nuanced.

The same goes for the the null label of the DNS root, which
goes back at least to 1983 (RFC 882).

> And IMO should be explicitly
> specified here, not just in the "overlap" section.

I think we are on shaky ground if we do that, except for IPv6.

    Brian