Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00.txt

Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> Sun, 13 January 2013 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24ED621F8431 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 06:22:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SLS7XTfMDAoe for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 06:22:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gh0-f173.google.com (mail-gh0-f173.google.com [209.85.160.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E5521F8414 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 06:22:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-gh0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 16so140866ghy.18 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 06:22:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jSyKRhlnE8jxxA5gyuRMsIqz9h3FiKfHGGYx0VA7wyY=; b=AlbCvPxNG9iUhicN81kcLBDDyGn50j6nITJVVD/hZbb6bk2noZtukRzz4p9l73K8XW 59Ajn/npAHt7EWOZSQ9NTtpL9YhC3ou86iv7iiT4bwL8j3TqeH0erOkGoML0zmJ/00T6 nbQhLbmjPksA/1rr/Ld9QfmkG3zfOtW6hyWAC1FEQu0JbeHkgaIf9GqmFRnjS+LN5LTA nNpxN3hjSjj6W+u2ZvOb0HZp8wCuV18DuiduHC9fpbSMvPFrGxdiJTGBKlQzxOLGSKyP ZnybgBdZmjJoizulJlUzP4+oWzd6ovdKeBSnWJb+optV81WPGTxTVead4Eu9PEa/VbIm fbrw==
X-Received: by 10.236.83.161 with SMTP id q21mr86618866yhe.91.1358086946748; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 06:22:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2800:af:ba30:eca7:e8bc:a199:cf5:88fd? ([2800:af:ba30:eca7:e8bc:a199:cf5:88fd]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t47sm10184724yhd.2.2013.01.13.06.22.24 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 13 Jan 2013 06:22:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50F2C31D.1080403@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:22:21 -0200
From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "ietf@ietf.org list" <ietf@ietf.org>, SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00.txt
References: <20130112085109.7357.35960.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <50F12E80.8080007@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <50F12E80.8080007@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:22:28 -0000

	I agree that RFC2050 is not completely valid with the current state of
the Internet, but making it historic will not solve any problem IMHO.

	Before making 2050 historic, we should think what is and what is not
valid according with today's internet, what the technical community
needs to recommend to the RIR community and make a new document that
updates and obsoletes 2050.

Cheers,
as


	
On 12/01/2013 07:36, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I object to making RFC 2050 historic without retaining at least the
> content of its Section 1 as an IETF BCP.
> 
> While the IETF did formally hand over details of address
> allocation policy to IANA, we did so knowing that the RIRs
> themselves, and IANA, considered themselves bound by RFC 2050
> (see the list of authors of that document).
> 
> An update of RFC 2050, within the scope set by the IETF-IANA
> MoU, would be reasonable. Abrogation is not reasonable.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter (speaking only for myself)
> 
> On 12/01/2013 08:51, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>
>>
>> 	Title           : Reclassifying Internet Registry Allocation Guidelines to Historic
>> 	Author(s)       : S. Moonesamy
>> 	Filename        : draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00.txt
>> 	Pages           : 4
>> 	Date            : 2013-01-12
>>
>> Abstract:
>> RFC 2050 describes the registry system for the distribution of globally
>> unique Internet address space and registry operations.  It also
>> discusses about policy issues which are outside the scope of the IETF.
>> This document reclassifies RFC 2050 as Historic.  It also reclassifies
>> RFC 1366 and RFC 1466 as Historic.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00
>>
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>