Subject: [Crisp] Last Call Comment: draft-ietf-crisp-iris-areg-11.txt

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 10:30:57 -0400

draft-ietf-crisp-iris-areg-11

This is related to a comment I provided last time:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/crisp/current/msg00202.html

I like the way the document now includes text (section 7.2) to explain
why the resolution process differs from the DNS domain resolution
process.  I'd still like to see some text added to explain why
areg.nro.net (section 9) is being defined as the "root".  What makes it
better than some other server?

After talking to Andy I understand the rationale and I agree that a
server operated by the Number Resource Organization is a good choice.
That rationale just doesn't exist in the current text, which makes me
wonder why that choice was made.  I'm sure the address registry
operators understand implicitly, but it would be better to be explicit
about the rationale.

-Scott-

_______________________________________________
Crisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 10:51:37 -0400

Scott,

To be clear -- the permanent identifier (root) is areg-iris.arpa.
The proposed initial target for that is areg.nro.net.

 From that perspective -- I agree some explanatory context (why
nro) could be nice, but I think the document has made critical
progress beyond the point of casting that particular choice in stone.

Leslie.