Subject: Re: Please review draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:35:58 +0100

Hi Russ,

I have four questions before following the request. Qs below; please answer,

[rfc2050bis-00]
> The administrative structures of the Internet Numbers Registry System
> described in this document are largely the result of the interaction
> of operational practices, existing routing technology, number
> resource assignments that have occurred over time, and network
> architectural history.  Further discussion and analysis of these
> interactions are outside the scope of this document.

1) Is this a historic document of Internet numbers or informational,
you mention history of what *occured over time*, but does the document
show dates?

2) The operational practices you mentioned and existing routing
technology, do they have technical purposes? if yes I think it will be
in scope to provide the purposes of thoes practices in the
applicability statement section.

3) Was this document's concerns discussed in IETF Routing Area or a
related document produced by the area? if yes please refer, if not I
recommend to be discussed.

4) What is the reason of out of scope, and not even refering to a
reference best paractice? Will there be IETF discussion and analysis
of these interaction in future? I think if informational document some
recommendations and analysis are helpful.

Regards
AB

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:58:20 -0700

[cc to [email-masked] moved to bcc try to keep discussion splay limited]

Hi,

Speaking for myself as one of the authors:

> you mention history of what *occured over time*, but does the document

Having a little trouble parsing this question. There was a concerted effort to _concisely_ describe the Internet Numbers Registry System as it is and, to a limited extent, came to be.  There were some proposed edits that went a bit more into the historical detail that included dates, but those edits were left out because we felt "less is more" and if someone cares, they can track down the history of the registry system through the "obsoletes" chain.

> applicability statement section.

I personally feel that the justification for the routing-related operational practices are unrelated to a document that is tightly focused on describing the Internet Numbers Registry System as it exists today. 

> recommend to be discussed.

This document is attempting to describe reality, not change it. While current routing system realities are indeed something that should be discussed, I believe a separate document would be appropriate to propose changes to that reality that would affect the Internet Numbers Registry System. 

> recommendations and analysis are helpful.

Again, this document is merely attempting to document the existing system, not provide any analysis of the benefits or issues with that system.  This is not to say that such analysis shouldn't be done (or that benefits or issues don't exist), rather that it wasn't the focus or intent of the document.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
-drc
(Speaking only for myself as an author of the document)