[CRISP-TEAM] 2ND CRISP IANA PROPOSAL Draft - CRISP Review
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Thu Jan 8 13:15:49 CET 2015
I think we have no more time to resolve this.
My suggestion is to keep the text sent by Michael for this, if there is
no agreement at this stage.
On 2015/01/08 21:05, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Alan Barrett wrote on 08/01/15 12:30:
>>> 4) Finally, regarding I.C.�� What registries are involved in providing
>>> the service or activity:
>>>> [...] Delegation of subdomains below the ���IN-ADDR.ARPA��� and
>>>> ���IP6.ARPA��� domain names also requires interaction with the .ARPA zone
>>> I am not sure that that delegation affects .ARPA. Maybe:
>>> "[...] Delegation of subdomains below the ���IN-ADDR.ARPA��� and ���IP6.ARPA���
>>> domains in accordance with the allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses."
>> The question is specifically about which registries are affected. You
>> seem to think that third-level or lower-level subdomains under
>> IN-ADDR.ARPA or IP6.ARPA do not affect the ARPA registry, and you may be
>> right (I don't know exactly where the boundary of the ARPA registry is),
>> but I want to mention the ARPA registry just in case it's relevant.
> 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 understand that these registries are strictly speaking outside the
> scope of the NTIA contract, but does it matter?
>> 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
> the benefit?
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP