Re: Question about past advice to RIRs

[bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:15:32AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> >>Note that RFCs 1265, 1787, 2008, 2827, and 3704 are included for the  
> >>perspectives they present whether currently applicable or not. The  
> >>biggest problems seem to arise from RFCs 1881 and 1887; if they are  
> >>obsolete, I have an entire section that might disappear.
> >>
> >>
> >>7.  References
> >>
> >>7.2.  Informative References
> >>
> >>  [RFC1881]  Internet Architecture Board and Internet Engineering
> >>             Steering Group, "IPv6 Address Allocation Management",
> >>             RFC 1881, December 1995.
> >>
> >>  [RFC1887]  Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "An Architecture for IPv6 Unicast
> >>             Address Allocation", RFC 1887, December 1995.
> >>
> >
> >
> >	note that both of these documents predate most of the RIR existance,
> >	when the IETF had a direct role in defining allocation 
> >	policies/stratagies.
> >
> >	in todays environment, i would consider both of these documents to be
> >	historical in nature, e.g. not applicable to the current RIR models.
> >	it is useful to note that RFC 1887 is labled "An Architecture..."
> >	which is a clear indication that the authors did not preclude other
> >	valid architectural models.
> 
> You're overlooking that RFC 1881 was and remains the basis on which the
> IPv6 address space was formally delegated to IANA by the community that
> created it. There's no sense in which that delegation is historical.
> Certainly we have learned a thing or two since 1995.

	not overlooking it.  but am not sure that RFC 1881 allows for 
	the delegation to be revolked.  Surely your not impuning that the
	IETF could reclaim IPv6 from the IANA and its subsiquent  delegations
	to RIR's?  Are you?
 
> On a point of fact, the RIPE-NCC was established in 1992. It was certainly
> my assumption in 1995 that IANA would further delegate prefixes to
> the registries, and that the registries would remain active in the
> IETF, so that address assignment practices would inform and be informed
> by IETF discussions. That still seems to be happening, fortunately.

	As I indicated earlier, MOST of the RIRs came AFTER these RFCs
	came into existance.  And as far as I am aware, there is no special
	"RIR" class of participation in the IETF, since IETF activity is 
	by individual.  Certainly the RIR policy process is based on 
	individual participation.  Statements from the IETF about how they
	think address assignment practices should occur are, on occasion,
	are taken by indivduals and crafted into policy proposals. But then
	the proposals are from individuals, not the IETF.

	
> 
>     Brian