Subject: draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:34:40 -0400

Many of the comments that were posted to this list have been incorporated.

Please comment on the updated document.

Russ

= = = = = = = = =

A new version of I-D, draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Geoff Huston and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-housley-rfc2050bis
Revision:	 01
Title:		 The Internet Numbers Registry System
Creation date:	 2013-04-08
Group:		 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 8
URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt
Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-rfc2050bis
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01
Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01

Abstract:
  This document provides information about the current Internet Numbers
  Registry System used in the distribution of globally unique Internet
  Protocol (IP) address space and autonomous system (AS) numbers.

  This document also provides information about the processes for
  further evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System.

  This document replaces RFC 2050.

  This document does not propose any changes to the Internet Numbers
  Registry System.

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 11:06:21 -0500

> Please comment on the updated document.

1.  Section 6 and the last paragraph of section 1 are mostly 
duplicative, I'd suggest eliminating section 6 and merging it into the 
last paragraph of section 1.  In particular the part "and omits policy 
and operational procedures that have been superseded by ICANN and RIR 
policy since RFC 2050 publication."  That is the only thing in section 6 
that isn't already in the last paragraph of section 1.  Unless you have 
plans to dramatically increase whats in section 6.

2.  Also, the references for RFC 1366 and RFC 1466 are missing.

3.  Regarding Public WHOIS in section 4;  The constituencies and 
stakeholders for Public WHOIS are much broader than just the technical 
community, a number of constituencies in civil society have legitimate 
interests in Public WHOIS.  I guess the main point I'm trying to make is 
that Public WHOIS is more than just a technical issue, and section 4 
seems to scope it as solely a technical issue.

I don't think you need to refocus section 4 from "Technical 
Considerations" I think simply recognizing that there are more than just 
technical considerations, especially for Public WHOIS, something like 
the following should be sufficient;

    2) ...have included consideration of the technical and operational
       requirements, as well as requirements of other stakeholders, for
       supporting WHOIS services...

Other stakeholders are recognized in general in section 5, but this is a 
little different, this is recognizing while Public WHOIS is a technical 
issue, it is more than just a technical issue.  Whereas Reverse DNS is 
almost entirely a technical issue.

Thanks.

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: [email-masked]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:45:38 -0700

On Apr 8, 2013, at 9:06 AM, David Farmer <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 3.  Regarding Public WHOIS in section 4;  The constituencies and stakeholders for Public WHOIS are much broader than just the technical community, a number of constituencies in civil society have legitimate interests in Public WHOIS.  I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that Public WHOIS is more than just a technical issue, and section 4 seems to scope it as solely a technical issue.

It's definitely a bigger issue, but it does not seem appropriate in 
an IETF document to assert points about all aspects of the issue, but 
instead better to just note the _technical considerations_ of the topic 
that are needed to keep the Internet running.

> I don't think you need to refocus section 4 from "Technical Considerations" I think simply recognizing that there are more than just technical considerations, especially for Public WHOIS, something like the following should be sufficient;
> 

This text would be the authors asserting that these requirements (those of 
other stakeholders of Whois) have been considered, and yet there are wide
range of non-technical aspects to Whois that quite probably have not been
fully considered; e.g. issues similar to those in various ongoing discussions 
of DNS Whois at ICANN this week...

The section is about the _technical considerations_ that have been considered 
in establishment of the Internet Numbers Registry System, and to change the 
text as you suggest would significantly expand its scope into areas not currently 
addressed in the text and not typical of other IETF documents, i.e. problematic.

FYI,
/John

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:15:30 -0500

> addressed in the text and not typical of other IETF documents, i.e. problematic.

You are probably right, but the first paragraph of section 4 says;

    As a result of the system of technical standards and guidelines
    established by the IETF as well as historical and operational
    constraints, there have been technical considerations regarding the
    services provided by the Internet Numbers Registry System as it
    evolved.  These technical considerations have included:

Specifically where it says "as well as historical and operational 
constraints" seems to open the door for what I'm talking about.  The way 
it is written, the "historical and" seem to stand apart from, separate 
from, or in addition too, the "technical standards and guidelines" of 
the IETF.  Historical constraints is rather broad and could easily 
include non-technical considerations.  Which the issues of broader 
society and Public WHOIS are certainly some of the historical 
non-technical considerations.

So I'd suggest that paragraph should get some work, to better represent 
the intent you have stated for this section.  I suggest the following 
text, based on my interpretation of what you are saying.  I feel it 
better constrains the discussion to the technical domain.  In particular 
changing "historical and operational constraints" to something like 
"historic operational practices".

    As a result of the system of technical standards and guidelines
    established by the IETF, as well as historic operational
    practices of the Internet community, there are technical
    considerations regarding the services provided by the Internet
    Numbers Registry System, these included:

Thanks.