David: > 1) In Section 1, goal #2, "Hierarchical Allocation", I believe a reference > the definition in RFC 5226 - Section 4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy > Definitions, should be considered.
We could do so, but I do not believe that the few word in RFC 5226 on hierarchical allocation improve the understanding of IP address allocation being discussed here. > 2) I also wonder if another appropriate goal would be explicitly defining the > ASN and IP address registries using RFC 5226 language including the formal > linkage to ICANN and the RIRs as the mechanism for IANA to implementing the > Hierarchical Allocation of these registries. See: RFC 5226, section 4.3. > "Updating IANA Guidelines for Existing Registries" > > The intention wouldn't be to override RFC 2860, ICANN Policy, or IR global > policy, but to provide and explicit formal technical definition for these > registries that really have only been implicitly defined to date as far as I > can tell. There are any number of other registries that are far less > important overall, that have excellent formal technical definitions that > comply with RFC 5226 or its predecessors. However, these our most important > registries have no such formal technical definitions, I think its really time > to fix this situation. > > That said, to the greatest extent possible we need a formal technical > definition compliant with RFC 5226 of the as-is-state, not of the > want-it-to-be-state. Or, if I'm incorrect and there are formal technical > definitions for these registries that comply with RFC 5226, or its > predecessors, then they should be referenced in this document. The top of the IPv6 Address Registry says: The IPv6 address management function was formally delegated to IANA in December 1995 [RFC1881]. The registration procedure was confirmed with the IETF Chair in March 2010. RFC 1881 is short, but it seems to say the things that need to be said. > 3) The last paragraph of Section 3, "Internet Numbers Registry Technical > Considerations" Says; > > As the Internet and the Internet Numbers Registry System continue to > evolve, it may be necessary for the Internet community to examine > these and related technical and operational considerations and how > best to meet them. > > I wonder if it wouldn't be appropriate to at least provide some suggestions > for how this is to be accomplished. Maybe request that future RFCs related > to these technical and operational considerations include an applicability > statement as to the Internet Numbers Registry System, either in a separate > section or maybe as a sub-section of the IANA Considerations. This evolution is discussed in Section 4. Maybe a forward pointer is needed. Did you not find Section 4 sufficient? Russ
