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

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Tue, 21 March 2017 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C526129AB2 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v2wfHYcu5rIf for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51C381294B8 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=70.194.19.173;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Eric C Rosen'" <erosen@juniper.net>, <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: <idr@ietf.org>
References: <048701d29cd9$15204b80$3f60e280$@olddog.co.uk> <022201d29ce6$ffb2ba40$ff182ec0$@ndzh.com> <c369a60a-3ccc-bf7d-dd29-d289d7a6b67e@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <c369a60a-3ccc-bf7d-dd29-d289d7a6b67e@juniper.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:55:58 -0400
Message-ID: <02dc01d2a25b$a1eca590$e5c5f0b0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02DD_01D2A23A.1ADD0160"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHgLJVhftftdlZ2OeQGM5dxbx7ZtQIfusEjApalZLqhXqec8A==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/QODVOnEjfpT2GtZ1vSgwoAg08Nk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Thoughts on https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hares-idr-bgp-registries-01.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:01:08 -0000

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:erosen@juniper.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 3:38 PM
To: Susan Hares; adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: idr@ietf.org
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.