Re: [Idr] Thoughts on https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hares-idr-bgp-registries-01.txt

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Eric: 

 

Politics: I do not know how this introduces politics - since it is just the
WG chairs.  The WG chairs for BGP related groups are very collaborative.  If
they are not collaborative, the ADs can work with or replace the WG chairs.


 

How does it speed up things?  It provides 8 designated experts which means
IANA does not have to chase down a few people (2-3).   This is the most
often reason for IANA slow-downs (AFAIK).  The collaborative chairs can
decide on a rotation for a designated person to check up with other chairs.
The new datatracker review process could automate that process. If you think
this should have a time limit (for example - 2 weeks), I agree.  I also
believe it should run concurrent with other processes.  This process should
start after the AD review considers document worthy and it MUST start no
later than IETF LC (2 weeks).   With these additions, I do not think it will
slow down the process. 

 

Have I responded to all your concerns?  If you think these mitigate the
problems, I will provide a revision to the draft that specifies these
changes. 

 

Sue 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric C Rosen [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 3:38 PM
To: Susan Hares; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] Thoughts on
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hares-idr-bgp-registries-01.txt

 

I don't think we need any more procedural hurdles that will slow down the
allocation process or that will introduce more politics into it.

 

The draft does not seem to be a solution to any problem, it just adds
process and politics.  It claims to have the goal of "increasing the pace of
early allocation", and proposes to do this by requiring allocations to be
approved by a committee of WG chairs or other designated "experts".  It
neglects to say how having more committees will increase the pace.

 

No doubt the designated experts will make their decisions "soon", as that
term is defined in draft-farrel-soon.

 

Adoption of this draft will result in more squatting rather than less.

 

Furthermore, a number of the mentioned registries were not established by
the IDR WG, and I don't see that the IDR WG has any standing to request
changes in the registration policies of those registries.