Ok, Ted, I can buy this, albeit somewhat reluctantly and noting
that the IAB has passed IAB documents that require community
consensus off to the IESG for determination of that consensus in
the past. I believe a paragraph of explanation, in your
personal capacity and very much along the lines of what you say
below, would be desirable, but don't see its absence as a
showstopper.
thanks for the explanation.
john
--On Monday, January 29, 2018 11:55 -0800 Ted Hardie
<ted.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:27 AM, John C Klensin
> <john-i...@jck.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> >> Unless there are considerations that I don't understand, I
>> >> agree with Frank and would go a step further. While the
>> >> document indicates that IRIS was not actually deployed for
>> >> address registry usage, as far as I know it has not been
>> >> deployed for anything else either and has become part of
>> >> the wreckage along the path to try to replace Whois for
>> >> registry database use.
>> >>
>> >> If the intent here is to say "we have given up on IRIS"
>> >>
>> >
>> > This came up in the context of the IAB trying to work out
>> > how useful some of the existing delegations in .arpa are,
>> > and the current draft reflects that. Updating RFC 4698
>> > was, in other words, the simplest thing we could do. Given
>> > the feedback, I'm fine with updating that to "obsoletes RFC
>> > 4698", since the data support the notion that this is not
>> > currently in use.
>> >
>> > I don't have the data to support a broader statement about
>> > IRIS, as I know that there was some deployment at one time.
>> > I would be fine seeing a deprecation if one is warranted, in
>> > other words, but I'm not sure I can put one forward to the
>> > community.
>> >
>> > Do you object to obsoleting just RFC 4698 by this document?
>>
>> Object, not really. I do see it as creating something of a
>> silly state in which we leave the protocol apparently active
>> and recommended while eliminating a key facility for
>> utilizing it in a particular way should one decide to do so.
>
>
> This actually reflects how the IRIS documents specified the
> extension to include address registrations; that facility was
> separately specified and could have been separately deployed.
> As far as we can tell, no one has deployed AREG. I've agreed
> that obsoleting the document, rather than simply updating it,
> appears to have community support. To put this another way, I
> personally see the AREG and DREG uses of IRIS as distinct, and
> I believe that reflects both the document structure and my
> ability to get data on their use. The data provided by
> examining the logs shows that there is no current use of RFC
> 4698 facilities, but there is no parallel data set for DREG
> available to me.
>
>
>> The only thing
>> that makes the address registries different in this regard is
>> that the number of possible uses is small and easily
>> identified.
>>
>> One of your comments above helps identify what concerns me
>> about this document, so let me take a step back and address
>> that. So the IAB decides that it should do a review of "how
>> useful some of the existing delegations in .arpa are". Seems
>> worthwhile to me although I might wonder whether the Internet
>> and the various protocol relationships were in such good
>> shape that the IAB should prioritize that work,
>
>
> It originally came up in the context of
> https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents
> /2017-2/iab-statement-on-the-registration-of-special-use-names
> -in-the-arpa-domain/ but the discussion after that was pretty
> clear that the IAB couldn't deprecate anything requested in
> Proposed Standard without an IETF consensus document. That's
> why this is a personal document going for proposed standard,
> not an IAB document.
>
>
>
>> But then I'd expect an I-D that
>> said that the IAB had conducted that review and was, e.g.,
>> elimination all of the subdomains/ registries that were unused
>> or that supported obsolete protocols (or particular
>> applications of protocols) and obsoleted the standards-track
>> documents creating those registries. Perfectly orderly.
>>
>>
> Each of the others where we might consider deprecation also
> requires an IETF consensus document, and they represent
> different communities of use (or did when specified). Putting
> them all into one document would make this more "the IAB has
> decided" than "X, who happens to be a member of the IAB,
> suggests that the IETF should consider deprecation of FOO".
> The latter seems more in keeping with our practice, at least
> as far as I see it.
>
> Had the community already obsoleted the relevant protocols,
> then I agree, the IAB could clean up the delegations without
> further ado.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
