Re: [Back to] Last Call: <draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt> (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Tue, 18 June 2013 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@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 51C1521F972E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02eSIan3TaQz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x236.google.com (mail-la0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABEF811E80EE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ec20so3747781lab.41 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=0QSeArNaMBULKqltfa1BQ1/XDODY9IobGVW942cpHBA=; b=ybNpVQJzd+YHhgtTL0cvVDufD7O3+cXhHgNeDVIg6JwvlyMY459dmpDQhXatUny2PZ I0tKnY6yXifUG8+dZG1C1CVOkQR91fV1Isezw2yVHKNhyhh7qs8wmIyni1FNyxVQNoSz BYjCYuaM7GAZQCE8AKJb/S68/fvScQ4APpBmzG5lh7egQAIq/UmTdUS3unUSl6SpYSQQ iz6CbpP/ezz+K3GYl/uDQoGtzGHoIE56hiLJUPOXG6diKn5IBemDZL/8haxoO7FCzLlf fdiFNbfibnYtmktqBMjMIRGvZiCLSAR3YntjFywLXEAn5WdYLysy31VQAdJ48nBkX9tF Jz+A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.146.97 with SMTP id tb1mr1654063lbb.26.1371579668335; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.22.196 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <333C0971-E28F-4F0C-B1DE-A09E75A07763@virtualized.org>
References: <F14A1FD640A19C37C743AFC2@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAL9jLaZncSO_nnpe0wPgfsEY9zGnCj=N0tE_8MyXZ1gL6re+cA@mail.gmail.com> <333C0971-E28F-4F0C-B1DE-A09E75A07763@virtualized.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:21:08 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: mgYPOc4UOpy-IELp_Z45Ut1OYYs
Message-ID: <CAL9jLaaBf1gzSk5oTMQuAg4uNxtUuyKdHfLD+BuZfm0BpGLAjA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Back to] Last Call: <draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt> (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: ietf <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: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:21:22 -0000

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:15 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> On Jun 18, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not such a fan of the draft, mostly because it appears to remove
>> some principles that some RIR folk hold up in their policy discussions
>> as important... while not having a backstop in said policies to
>> replace the originals from 2050.
>
> Which principles are you referencing?

at least needs-based allocations...

So, I should be clear that I don't 'like' that 'the ietf has dictated'
to the community some actions they must take with respect to
allocation policy that the RIR communities are supposed to agree upon
amongst their individual selves (perhaps coordinated, perhaps not). So
I understand why these things (and actually agree with) the removal of
these things.

I think though there could be perceived a situation where 'oops, no
more rules!!' because the RIRs (arin's community at least) hasn't
pushed for these items explicitly in their policy manual. (arin has
some of this via linkages to 2050 in their PDP.. but not in the
community-built nrpm)

It's worth noting, to me at least, that the 'no rules!' bit could be
viewed as a good thing, and could be a method to pull back as a
community and gather some data on how the system reacts. Additonally,
it could be the case that the community really does not want this sort
of restriction in place in the name of 'making the move to ipv6 happen
more quickly and more completely' (a-la burning your ships upon
landing in the 'new world').

as a summary:
  1) happy to see the principles / restrictions imposed from 'above'
on the RIR's removed
  2) happy to see the doc move forward
  3) interested to see how the communities at the RIR level deal with this
  4) sad a bit that the ARIN community (at least) didn't move to put
in place protections/restrictions/garter-belts/suspenders/etc before
this doc is published.

-chris

>
> Thanks,
> -drc
>