Re: [RADIR] Should RADir be closed?

Thomas Narten <> Tue, 15 December 2009 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42D53A6A2A for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:18:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.558
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, DIET_1=0.083]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pBB7Q3LtOQ0a for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:18:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9EE03A68B4 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:18:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id nBFECYRp018732 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:12:34 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id nBFEHfL5110002 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:17:41 -0500
Received: from (loopback []) by (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id nBFEHf0p016795 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:17:41 -0200
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id nBFEHeOW016759 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:17:41 -0200
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.3/8.12.5) with ESMTP id nBFEHdt7023605; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:17:40 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: Russ Housley <>
In-reply-to: <>
References: <>
Comments: In-reply-to Russ Housley <> message dated "Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:12:17 -0500."
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:17:39 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <>
Subject: Re: [RADIR] Should RADir be closed?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:18:04 -0000

> I have not seen much activity here in quite some time.  Has the 
> directorate outlived its usefulness?

I think there is agreement we don't have a real purpose at this point
and energy seems to have moved elswhere.

But, I think the problem statement document we put together is pretty
good and I think it should get published as an info RFC. The last
version was in pretty good shape (IMO), but hadn't really gotten much
feedback either way, so others may think otherwise. (The main change
in the last revision was to take out more of the "business judgement"
as being out-of-scope.)

Not sure how best to publish it. We can go the independent submission
route, but I think it would better for all if this were IETF approved,
implying it had gotten IETF review and folk were generally supportive
(and more importantly, there was no serious objecting/disagreement
with the content). I have doubts about going further and trying and
get IETF "consensus" and make it a BCP or something stronger, as the
community is likely fundamentally divided on the question of "how
serious" the problem is. I suspect that no one really has the desire
or energy to have that debate yet again.

I do think the document should say that it was put together by the
directorate, listing the members and so forth, but without trying to
claim that because it was done by a directorate, it has some sort of
special cachet or extra weight.  But at the same time, I don't think
we should lose the history of how the document was developed.