Subject: [MBONED] addrarch: should IANA change its policies?

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:33:38 +0200 (EET)

AD review issue: should IANA change its policies?

3) What should IANA do with this document?  Is it just for
    information, or should its policies be changed, for example
    relating to IANA allocations or tightening the IANA assignment
    policy?  Currently we don't make an explicit statement about this.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 07:38:24 -0800

> 3) What should IANA do with this document?  Is it just for
                                   ^^^^^^^^

	Which document?

	--dmm

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 07:38:24 -0800

^^^^^^^^

	Which document?

	--dmm

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:34:47 +0200 (EET)

>> 3) What should IANA do with this document?  Is it just for

The subject matter, i.e., draft-ietf-mboned-addrarch-05.txt or 
revisions thereof.

I get the feeling that at least a couple of folks would prefer that 
the IETF had more explicit guidelines to IANA and possibly the IANA 
designated expert on 'appropriate' assignments and allocations or that 
some of IANA's current policies should change somehow.

Should this document change the IANA policies (I guess, including the 
criteria used by designated expert) status quo in any way?  Should it 
be left for some other document?  Or not say much at all?

As a WG participant, I'd like the first option best.  As the document 
editor, however, I dislike it because of the time and extended 
discussions that would likely result; deferring to another document 
would be an 'easy' solution but given that there have been (at least) 
two attempts to create one in 2002 and 2004, I doubt that would be 
successful in the end.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:34:47 +0200 (EET)

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:10:33 -0800

> The subject matter, i.e., draft-ietf-mboned-addrarch-05.txt or 

	Sorry about that. I didn't catch how you were using the
	Subject line; my mistake there.

> some of IANA's current policies should change somehow.

	I asked the IESG (a couple of years ago or so) to work on
	appointing a new IANA expert (replacing me), so that is
	in the works. If want is desired is a "team" of experts",
	I'm not sure whether or not the O&M ADs are considering
	that, so you might make an explicit request to that
	effect (just to be sure if you or someone hasn't
	already done so). 

	Regarding more specific guidelines, sure. 

> be left for some other document?  Or not say much at all?

	I wouldn't confound IANA guidelines with addressing
	architecture, but that's WG decision.
	
> two attempts to create one in 2002 and 2004, I doubt that would be 

	I don't know. I think we seriously cleaned up the IANA
	guidelines and what they allocated (including reclaiming
	a lot of space). The problem is quite simply that we
	don't have a lightweight discovery protocol (at the very
	least, hardcoding a multicast address into your device is
	"lighter weight"), and SSM deployment is very much stalled. 

	Personally, I don't think the fix to either of the
	problems I mentioned is at the IANA (nor is it in their
	purview, as far as I understand). So we can dork with
	assignment policies all we want, but until we overcome
	these problems I'm guessing there will continue to be
	"pressure" on the IPv4 multicast address space.

	--dmm

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:10:33 -0800

--dmm