Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00.txt
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 12 January 2013 22:21 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 F059421F8917 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:21:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.134
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 YGgJk1Q3Yu+L for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:21:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F7B121F8911 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:21:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1Tu9SH-000AWy-HF; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 17:21:33 -0500
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 17:21:28 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00.txt
Message-ID: <03E877D7862B38284128680C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <6D2D2975-A47A-4A0B-A11F-D7C73FE22EDD@virtualized.org>
References: <20130112085109.7357.35960.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <50F12E80.8080007@gmail.com> <6D2D2975-A47A-4A0B-A11F-D7C73FE22EDD@virtualized.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, Subramanian Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
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: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 22:21:41 -0000
--On Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:36 -0800 David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote: >... > No, since addressing is _explicitly_ declared out of scope of > that MoU, see section 4.3 of RFC 2860: > > "Two particular assigned spaces present policy issues in > addition to the technical considerations specified by the > IETF: the assignment of domain names, and the assignment of > IP address blocks. These policy issues are outside the > scope of this MOU." > > I don't think it is particularly useful or helpful to try to > assert that the IETF did "formally hand over" address > allocation to IANA since, as you know, there are lots of folks > who have, do, and will claim address allocation, as an > operational matter, was never the IETF's to "hand over". What > might be useful/helpful is to try to identify the portions of > RFC 2050 that have any relevance to the IETF and verify that > those portions are covered elsewhere. David (and Brian and Subramanian), There are cans of poisonous, vicious vipers (only superficially resembling cans of worms) that are, IMO, best not opened and this is, IMO, one of them. The reasons for that are probably as obvious to you as they are to me and I certainly agree with most of your last paragraph above. However, I don't think the section of 2860 that you cite helps very much because there is another way to read it. That alternate reading, which I believe is actually the correct one, says that the addressing issues (and the domain ones) consist of two parts "technical considerations" which are specified by the IETF and "policy issues" that are someone else's problem. Indeed, it says "policy issues in addition to...", which I think recognizes that those "technical considerations" may have policy implications and that it is within scope for the IETF to specify those too. The exclusion is for policy issues that are _not_ part of the technical considerations. With the understanding that the boundary that posits is very fuzzy, I don't think that basic principle has changed significantly since the MOU and probably not much since RFC 2050. The IETF still has responsibility for the technical specification of addresses and the policies that narrowly implies; other policy issues, including the models for allocations of addresses to those who will use them, belong to others. I think it unwise try to define the boundary more precisely than that. You may recall that an attempt was made to do so more or less unilaterally at the time the NRO was formed; in my opinion, that didn't work out especially well for the Internet (YMMD). If Jon were participating in this conversation today, I'm quite sure that he would be saying that it is much more important for the RIRs and the IETF to work together to get the best result for the Internet rather than putting energy into trying to legislate or enforce a boundary (whether that effort started in the IETF or in the RIRs). best, john
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… David Conrad
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… S Moonesamy
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… David Conrad
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… John C Klensin
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… Randy Bush
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… David Conrad
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… Dave Crocker
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… Randy Bush
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… David Conrad
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… Randy Bush
- digressive rant on internet fiefdoms Randy Bush
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… Arturo Servin
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… John C Klensin
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… Lee Howard
- Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-… Abdussalam Baryun