[CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team Liason to the IETF?

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Thank you Izumi and Ernest for highlighting this issue. Le me open a
separate thread and share some of my initial thoughts.

Regards,

Andrei

Izumi Okutani wrote on 12/12/14 12:55:
> 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
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp