[CRISP-TEAM] Suggested text: Review Commitee

[Alan Barrett]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>It seems none of my proposals regarding overlaps were included in the
>new text:

I also had a proposal that has not been incorporated.

    The specific registries that are administered by the IANA per
    the authority delegated to the Internet Number Registry System
    are "Autonomous System (AS) Numbers", "IANA IPv4 Address Space
    Registry", and "IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments".  These
    IANA registries also contain information about reserved or
    special-use values or ranges that are outside the management of the
    Internet Numbers Registry System and instead administered under the
    direction of the IETF.  The delineation of the specific reserved
    ranges and ranges delegated to the Internet Number Registry system
    is provided in RFC 7249.  It is expected that the boundary between
    IETF-managed and Internet Number Registry-managed parts of the
    number spaces may change from time to time, with agreement between
    the IETF and the RIRs.  Possible reasons for changes include the
    possibility that the IETF may release some previously reserved space
    for general use, or may reserve some previously unused space for a
    special purpose.

I consider the change from "special-purpose values" to "reserved 
or special-purpose" to be important.  The last two sentences about 
"It is expected that the boundary ... may change from time to time 
..." are not critical.

> NEW:
>
> The IETF is responsible for policy relating to the entire IP 
> address space and AS number space.  Through the IANA protocol 
> parameters registries, the IETF delegates unicast IP address 
> ("IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry" and "IPv6 Global Unicast 
> Allocations Registry") and AS number space ("Autonomous System 
> (AS) Numbers Registry”) to the RIR system [RFC7020]. Note 
> that within each IANA registry, there are also special-purpose 
> registries, which are outside the Internet Numbers Registry 
> System and instead administered under the direction of the 
> IETF. The delineation of the specific ranges delegated to the 
> Internet Number Registry system is provided in RFC 7249.

I think that is an improvement over the old text.  To incorporate 
my concern about reserved values that are not special-purpose 
values, perhaps we could say

    Note that within each IANA registry, there are also reserved values
    or ranges, and special-purpose registries, which are outside the
    Internet Numbers Registry System and instead administered under the
    direction of the IETF.

> OLD:
>
> The five open regional RIR communities develop the global 
> policies under which allocations from the IANA-managed pools are 
> made. The RIRs facilitate the open, transparent and bottom-up 
> processes via which the communities develop and agree these 
> policies. There are currently three global policies relating to 
> management of the global pools of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses 
> and AS Numbers. There is a fourth global policy agreed by the 
> RIR communities, ICP-2, "Criteria for Establishment of New 
> Regional Internet Registries".
>
>
> NEW:
>
> Allocations from these registries delegated to the Internet 
> Number Registry system are performed by IANA following the 
> global policies, developed by RIR communities following a 
> global policy development process [REFERENCE]. This is an 
> open, transparent and bottom-up processes facilitated by the 
> RIRs. There are currently three global policies relating to 
> management of the global pools of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses 
> and AS Numbers. There is a fourth global policy agreed by the 
> RIR communities, ICP-2, "Criteria for Establishment of New 
> Regional Internet Registries".

That change looks OK to me.

--apb (Alan Barrett)