Re: [sig-policy] last call: prop-061: Autonomous System Numbers (ASN) fo
Sure, we ended up getting a documentation prefix, but that doesn't
mean that the path that led to the end point was the best one...
> > This sort of global reservation is best made by IANA (at the request
> > of someone). We have lots of examples/precedent for that. The IETF is
> > the logical place for the request to come from.
> that last is not completely clear. it's at the border between ops/rirs
> and tech/ietf.
Agree there is room to argue, but there almost always is. :-)
IMO, the question is whether an individual RIR is the best place to be
making such a reservation or whether there is a more appropriate
place.
And I also have to ask, if this type of request is within-scope for
APNIC's PDP, just what exactly are the scope boundaries? Anything the
community thinks it should take on is OK? Are there no limits? (Be
careful what you wish for...)
> >> o for it to have global/formal effect, there probably should be an rfc
> >> directing the iana
> > If APNIC makes the reservation, IANA can only record what APNIC has
> > done after the fact.
> as it did with the v6 documentation prefix. this is perceived as having
> worked.
Depends on your definition. In that case, just like in this one, there
was (to my knowledge) no attempt to raise the issue within the IETF
first. The IETF works in a demand-driven mode. If no one points out
the need for something, it won't happen on its own.
> >> o but an apnic allocation would do in the long meantime
> > I disagree about the "long" part. The IETF can do this quickly too.
> ( i will keep my mouth shut. i will keep my mouth shut. ... :)
> > Also, it wouldn't be a "meantime". Once APNIC makes the reservation,
> > it cannot be revoked, since the vendor might have already put bit into
> > documentation.
> is there a problem with this? is it a bug or a feature?
At a technical level, probably not problem. But I worry about the
precedent that will be set. Sometime in the future, the topic may be
much more controversial...
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huston-as-documentation-reservation-00
> so we have the volunteer. folk did look at him with expectation.
> so what is actually broken here? ietf's tosies being stepped on?
Of course it is an issue of turf. And if the IETF took on a task that
an RIR felt was more appropriately theirs, they would object too. (Or
grumble quietly, or something.)
I'll grant that in this case, the issue of where the work gets done is
relatively small, since there is general agreement on the technical
solution. But a precendent is being set. Sometime in the future, that
precedent will get cited in a case where the stakes may well be
higher. And then the principle may well matter a whole lot more. And
the spirit of cooperation in effect between the respective communities
will come into play.
It would be nice to sort out the scope issue while we have a proposal
in which there is general (overwhelming?) agreement on the technical
need and solution. I'd hate to have to also sort out the scope issue
when the issue itself is complex as well.
Thomas