On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matt...@matthew.at<mailto:matt...@matthew.at>> wrote:
You can also note that while RFC2050 mentions "transfer" exactly once, without definition, it is now obsolted by RFC7020 which doesn't mention "transfer" even once. RFC 2050 was recognized as quite dated, and a number of folks went about an effort to update it. Efforts were made to keep the language in RFC 7020 describing the Internet Number Registry system as objective as possible, and you can look in the acknowledgements section if you’re curious about the many participants involved. (I would be remiss if I did not specifically call out David Conrad for his reluctant but highly effective efforts to keep the document neutral in its descriptive text… :-) One of the most significant reasons RFC 2050 was dated is due to the inclusion of detailed registry policy in the document, whereas RFC 7020 specifically does not include any statement of registry policy, focusing instead on the goals and structure of the overall system (i.e. a document which we’ve needed for some time and now have available.) Should we conclude that meddling in transfers is out of scope for the registry then? RFC 7020 notes that "The RIRs also conduct regional number policy development used in the administration of the number resources for which they are responsible.”, i.e. it all depends on what policy is developed in this regard. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
