Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice

Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Thu, 20 December 2012 23:33 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.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 B659021F8A77 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:33:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.573
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, 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 RU2fykXiDyBZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:33:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sabertooth02.qualcomm.com (sabertooth02.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.38]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59C121F8A95 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:33:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1356044731; x=1387580731; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dPomM+Iux4U810XAjW6MAzQnChShdjC/FqriahGJsPU=; b=LMAvCbPGPnWDlZOVBCZsRwFHAS5MLchoBmrxv6SUtX3ffNJ4qfy4yzn2 4fuaxOD52Im5M+3FREU9e5xl/3T8oVOiWu94L51fKq0KIgPoO55Qq72JJ 1uo8DbPlmccl2Pljr9qZKdnAjYaphsg4y0eLJSoZD/LRYLtfMAdSrPtQI I=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,326,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="12948605"
Received: from ironmsg01-lv.qualcomm.com ([10.47.202.180]) by sabertooth02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 20 Dec 2012 15:05:30 -0800
Received: from nasanexhc07.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.190]) by ironmsg01-lv.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 20 Dec 2012 15:33:23 -0800
Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.4; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:33:22 -0800
Message-ID: <50D3A040.4090706@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:33:20 -0600
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
References: <20121129205534.8983.43593.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121129165519.0a037840@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121129165519.0a037840@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 23:33:25 -0000

I see Ron has gotten back to Geoff and posted a new version of his 
document. Since I've already stuck my nose out with questions before, I 
might as well do so again. (For the record, my DISCUSS on another 
document and the DISCUSS of me and a couple of others on another 
document is what motivated Ron to write this one, so I feel a bit of 
responsibility to make sure this gets done.)

So, some questions for SM:

On 11/29/12 9:22 PM, SM wrote:

> BCP 153 is about Special Use IPv4 addresses.  This intended BCP will 
> create a mishmash as the draft covers both IPv4 and IPv6.  I suggest 
> handling the IP versions in two separate drafts.

I haven't seen anyone jump out of the woodwork in support of splitting 
the document, and the document we've got on the table does it this way. 
Do you think this is important enough to stop the document?

> RFC 5375 is being obsoleted by this draft.  RFC 6598 updates RFC 
> 5375.  Could someone explain that to me (see 
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5375&eid=3309 and the 
> relevant discussion for details)?

I think you've confused the documents. It's 5735, not 5375. So I take it 
this is not relevant, correct?

> The following text is from RFC 3330 which was written by the Internet 
> Assigned Numbers Authority:
>
>   "Throughout its entire history, the Internet has employed a central
>    Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) responsible for the
>    allocation and assignment of various identifiers needed for the
>    operation of the Internet [RFC1174].  In the case of the IPv4 address
>    space, the IANA allocates parts of the address space to Regional
>    Internet Registries according to their established needs.  These
>    Regional Internet Registries are responsible for the assignment of
>    IPv4 addresses to operators and users of the Internet within their
>    regions.
>
>    [paragraph omitted]
>
>    On an ongoing basis, the IANA has been designated by the IETF to make
>    assignments in support of the Internet Standards Process [RFC2860].
>    Section 4 of this document describes that assignment process."
>
> The text was also present in RFC 5735.  I unfortunately have to object 
> to the disappearance of that text.

This document does not change 2860 and it doesn't change 1174. So this 
policy associated with this text is still in place, whether or not we 
repeat the above paragraphs. Putting this text in seems unimportant and 
I haven't seen support to do so. Can you explain how important this 
objection is? Again, do you see this as a reason not to go forward?

> RFC 5736 provides direction to IANA concerning the creation and 
> management of the IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry.   The 
> information in RFC 5375 is not obsolete.

We do want 5735 to be obsolete because it is no longer the authoritative 
list of addresses; the registry is. So I think you got that part wrong. 
But you may have a point about *also* obsoleting 5736. I'll leave that 
one to Ron and Ralph.

> From the IANA Considerations Section:

Ron updated this to:

    IANA will update the aforementioned registries as requested in the
    "IANA Considerations" section of an IETF reviewed document.  The
    "IANA Considerations" section must include all of the information
    specified in Section 2.1 of this document.


> RFC 5735 mentions that:
>
>   "Among other things, [RFC2860] requires that protocol parameters be
>    assigned according to the criteria and procedures specified in
>    RFCs, including Proposed, Draft, and full Internet Standards and
>    Best Current Practice documents, and any other RFC that calls for
>    IANA assignment."
>
> This draft changes it.

I don't understand what you mean here. Are you suggesting that this 
document updates 2860, or somehow changes something in 2860? It does not 
AFAICT. Please explain.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478