-------------------------------------------------- http://info.internet.isi.edu:80/IAB/IABmins.950110 (Letter re. who owns the address space) It was argued that the letter should avoid statements of "ownership" of the address space. Instead, have the ISOC state that they endorse a particular management plan for the address space, and don't deal with issues of abandonment at all. Also, the word "custodian" might be better than "owner." Really, we want the IANA to control the address space, which then allocates them according to guidance from the IAB and the IETF. The issue is who has the ultimate responsibility when someone does not like what the IANA does. A proposal is to give ownership to ISOC at the same time that it delegates addresses, thus removing any bottlenecks. However, this still does not answer the question of who owns and controls the reserve space. - prepare 1466++. Should we send a letter to the IEPG? Should there be a recommendation of the IAB? Should there be a public review? -------------------------------------------- Christian Huitema -- 20 Apr 1995(1) -- CIDRD In fact, all this "what should the registry do" questions beg for one answer, i.e. a clear revision of 1466. We need to have written rules. We also need these rules to be well accepted, which implies public review, last call and all this sort of things. Christian Huitema ---------------------------------------------- Christian Huitema -- 20 April 1995(1) -- CIDRD =>> Well, I hope you did not take my message as implying that *I* intended to =>> write the rules. I may wish to contribute, but I would expect the actual text =>> to be the work of an open working group. => => And in the interim, the registries should...? => => Thanks, => -drc David, You have a choice of three possibilities: 1) consider that 1466 fully applies as long as the revision is not published, 2) continue current practice, which involves 1466, 1597, 1626, IAB and IANA statements and a lot of case by case discussions, 3) ask "someone in charge" (e.g. IANA) to publish an interim amendment to 1466, pending its revision. My point is that the interim period should really be as short as possible. Whether (1), (2) or (3) is the right interim solution could well be discussed here. Christian Huitema ------------------------------------------- http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/imr/imr9506.txt Mark Kosters and Kim Hubbard attended the NANOG meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan on June 22-23, 1995. Mark gave a presentation on the status of the InterNIC and the draft IP allocation practices that has been created in lieu of the general ip allocation document effort, rfc1466bis. RFC1466bis was broken into sections and assigned at RIPE in Jan 1995. Both the APNIC and InterNIC portions where completed. The RIPE section has not yet been completed. Kim Hubbard has agreed to complete the unfinished work in the RIPE section and pull the document together for review. Mark Kosters attended INET95 to give a presentation on the status of the InterNIC. ------------------------------------------- http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/imr/imr9604.txt INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES for consideration as a Best Current Practices RFC. ------------------------------------- ftp://ftp.ietf.org/iesg/iesg.96-08-22 The IESG gave tentative approval of INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES pending the conposition of text for the IESG comment which will include a sunset clause (point in future when document will reviewed. Once the IESG note is written, and each of the dissenters convey their acceptance, Steve will send announcement ------------------------------------- ftp://ftp.ietf.org/iesg/iesg.97-12-18 There was some discussion on Reconsidering RFC2050 (INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES. When published, an IESG note was included which stated that this document would be reconsidered in a year. The IESG consensus was that it was premature to do that at this point due to the significant ammount of activity in the US goverment in this area and in the address registeries - the effect of these activties will become more apparent in a few months. A target of March 1, 1998 was mentioned, but it was noted that a response to the email query should be made relatively soon. The IESG agreed to work on the proper wording of the response via email. As Scott received the initial query, he will send the response. May also copy the IETF list as well.