[CRISP-TEAM] 2ND CRISP IANA PROPOSAL Draft - CRISP Review
apb at cequrux.com
Thu Jan 8 13:14:16 CET 2015
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>What is the benefit of doing this, in your opinion? The question is
>"What registries are involved in providing the service or activity" and
>IMO if we simply state that these are IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA, it
>should be sufficient.
I am not aware that IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA registries exist.
They are not mentioned in the www.iana.org page. We have to
mention a registry, and the .ARPA registry seems to be the
>I understand that these registries are strictly speaking outside the
>scope of the NTIA contract, but does it matter?
No, I don't think it matters that they are not mentioned in the
NTIA IANA contract.
>> Would you be satisfied with this:
>> Delegation of subdomains below the “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA”
>> domain names may also require direct or indirect interaction with
>> the .ARPA registry.
>I am not sure this is technically correct and will also imply that there
>is a stronger interdependency with the IETF than it is. Again - what is
We need IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA services. We should mention the
registry or registries thaat are involved in delivering that service.
.ARPA is the closest fit, even though it doesn't seem to match exactly,
so I think we should say that it's the closest fit.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the CRISP