4) We note that if the RIRS are to implement this proposal (or something
like it), there may be RIR-internal processes that need to take
place in order to get formal approval to go forward. For example,
a specific proposal may need to be reviewed by the membership at
large and/or discussed in RIR policy groups. On the other hand,
RIRs may regared this as sufficiently similar to existing activities
that it could be undertaken without invoking such policy processes.
Accordingly, there are some process issues that may yet need to be
reswolved before a timeline for launching this activity is able to
be set.There is no doubt that there is some effort on the part of the RIRs to
implement this registry operation. Charges applicable to the service would need to be determined within the parameters of a cost recovery
function for operation of the function distinct from the costs of other
RIR functions, and within the parameters of (for instance) the
anticipated costs of secure maintenance of records in perpetuity.
It is our intention that the NRO would describe its intended mode of
operation of this registry function in the format of a document that would be published in the form of an Internet draft within the RIR
community and the IETF, and comments would be gathered from those
communities, in the same fashion as the approach used in preparing the
6to4 reverse DNS service.
A initial estimate of the likely timeline to get up such a registry is that 7 months would be a reasonable target at this point in time, all other things going well of course.
Again we would like to convey our appreciation for your consultative approach to this matter, and our trust that these comments are helpful to the IESG in their consideration of this proposal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
