[CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team Liason to the IETF? (was: Re: Input for discussion: a drafty-draft)

[Izumi Okutani]

Thank you Ernest for sharing this. I wasn't aware of this.

 > One issue I did not see discussed yet is around .arpa - I recall the
 > NRO EC suggested the CRISP team appoints a liaison to the IETF to
 > ensure that the proposal from IETF meets the numbering's community's
 > expectations as far as .arpa is concerned.


CRISP Team,

How do we want to handle this?

As several CRISP team members have expressed, we don't have to consider 
all feedbacks from NRO EC.

With this as basis, do you think it's an idea worth considering?

My personal impression is liasion to IETF is a little heavy, even if we 
feel it's important to make sure IETF's proposal meets the numbering's 
community's expectations related to .arpa (for reverse zones part).

I'm also not totally sure if this is something CRISP team 
representatives should work on.

Perhaps another alternative approach is, since the IETF proposal draft 
is shared on ianaxfer at nro.net, NRO EC can call for attention to the 
numbers community here, to look at the proposal related to .arpa with 
attention, if they feel this is important.

Anyone has thoughts?


Regards,
Izumi

(2014/12/12 17:10), Ernest wrote:
> Izumi Okutani wrote thus on 12/11/14, 1:06 PM:
>>> I also think that while editorial suggestions are fine and
>>> welcome, the
>>> priority should perhaps be given to highlighting substantive issues
>>> other team members see with the proposed arrangements in this
>>> draft. If
>>> we can distill those here on the list, we can have a more productive
>>> discussion at the call today, IMO.
>>
>> Good suggestion Andrei. This would indeed be helpful.
>>
>> I'd also like to point out that the comparison of RIR proposals sent
>> by Craig (Summary of RIR proposals.pdf) may be helpful in
>> highlighting the difference and key issues, to consider your comments.
>>
>>> Of course if there are no major issues and we just need to polish the
>>> existing text - that is even better!
>>
>> :)
>
> One issue I did not see discussed yet is around .arpa - I recall the
> NRO EC suggested the CRISP team appoints a liaison to the IETF to
> ensure that the proposal from IETF meets the numbering's community's
> expectations as far as .arpa is concerned.
>
> For the drafting team - one minor typo in page 2 of the proposal -
> ���IPv6.ARPA��� needs to change to "ip6.arpa".
>
> regards
> ernest
>