Re: [OPS-AREA] Documenting rules for the Private Enterprise Numbers registry: draft-liang-iana-pen-00

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 24 May 2012 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE13E21F8672 for <ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 May 2012 05:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_PENIS=2.3, 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 NhB-xZnv0b8M for <ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 May 2012 05:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (cl-125.lon-03.gb.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a00:14f0:e000:7c::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F180021F8648 for <ops-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 May 2012 05:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1337861367; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=lj33HZPnTK7IB91oWLyojo2rlaK7Jv5n1gIfL6b6dsI=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=taQEXGpVIarKDK/m8t9N8vnimzrLX83De/cRYHri1isg5nQAtyY2zG1kx0/LDZGCcgUIN4 QZCdFX28zWshwqFXJ+CWU6/IkWwLCFg2KYDo0Mhla/M6NR5M8foPzVEXkQ7cTU+z7jwvWt FiA19TJaq/sJMHUj0Mb+0WK5SfwobEM=;
Received: from [172.16.1.29] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <T74k9gAE46jd@rufus.isode.com>; Thu, 24 May 2012 13:09:27 +0100
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: PIPELINING
Message-ID: <4FBE250D.3030301@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 13:09:49 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
References: <4FA98384.8090805@isode.com> <4FAA872F.9080007@bwijnen.net>
In-Reply-To: <4FAA872F.9080007@bwijnen.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: pearl.liang@icann.org, ops-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Documenting rules for the Private Enterprise Numbers registry: draft-liang-iana-pen-00
X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list <ops-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ops-area>, <mailto:ops-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ops-area>
List-Post: <mailto:ops-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ops-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area>, <mailto:ops-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 12:09:28 -0000

Hi Bert,

On 09/05/2012 16:03, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
> Mmm.. In IANA considerations I see:
>
>
>    o Removal of Private Enterprise Numbers:
>
>    A Contact Name can request to remove the corresponding PEN allocation
>    if the resource is no longer in used or the resource does not meet
>    the needs.  (In a case when the Contact Name is no longer with the
>    Company/Organization, the Modification procedure described above MUST
>    be used first.)  Such request does not happen often and regularly.
>
>    Requests can only be fulfilled upon verification by IANA and/or
>    subject matter experts.
>
>    If the removal request is honoured, the entry is marked as
>    "Unassigned" and can be reallocated by IANA later unless specified
>    otherwise, i.e. by marking the entry as "Reserved".
>
> How can we be assured that the once assigned PEN is not being used
> anywhere in the digital world? What is someone is still using it in
> some obsoleted/no-longer-supported product? Should he/she run the
> risk that it conflicts with a possible new assignment/allocation?

Yes, good points.

> I would rather see that it will be marked "returned on yyyy-mm-dd
> by xxxxxxx" and then that it not be re-used/allocated unless we
> run out of numbers far in the future (at that time we can decide
> if this makes sense, or possibly define another arc in
> iso.org.dod.internet.private.enterprise, for example:
>   iso.org.dod.internet.private.enterprise.2^32-1.PEN
> where 2^32-1 is a special PEN that indicates that the PEN
> is longer than 32bits.

I've changed this in my copy of -01.