[NRO-IANAXFER] Comments on CRISP proposal

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Tue Dec 30 07:14:06 CET 2014


Dear Andrew,


Thank you sharing your general feedback that the proposal is in the
right direction and two points of suggestions.

While this is not yet reflected in the list of issues being worked on by
CRISP Team which I shared earlier on this mailing list, both of your
suggested points are raised in the CRISP Team for discussions.


Best Regads,
Izumi

On 2014/12/30 5:47, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> I have read the file
> <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-IANA-PROPOSAL-Draft-24122014-clean.pdf>.
> I have some comments to make under personal title (i.e. I make these
> remarks without respect to any membership or relationship I might have
> to any corporate or other body).
> 
> I want to thank the CRISP team for some very good work.  The proposal
> seems to me to be overall sensible and achievable.  If the proposal
> were made final as is (modulo the missing bits), I think that would
> provide a good base from which to begin.  I do have two small
> suggestions for alterations, however.
> 
> First, as a nit, on page 1, under "description of the service", it
> mentions "delegation of the 'in-addr.arpa' and 'ip6.arpa' DNS trees".
> Perhaps this means "delegation from"?  IANA doesn't delegate those two
> names to any of the RIRs, but delegates spaces within them.  (I
> suspect this is just an editorial nit, but it confused me on first
> reading.)  There's a similar issue under "what registries", on p2, and
> it's only really made clear in the "overlaps" section (also on p2).  I
> am prepared to imagine that I'm the only person who was led astray by
> this, and it's not a real big deal, but it might be nice to clarify.
> 
> Second, I don't know whether this matters, but the text does not seem
> to discuss the possibility of the NRO finding itself in the position
> of needing to change IANA operators, and yet being unable to get other
> IANA users to do the same thing.  That scenario, however, is implied
> by the NRO undertaking a contract with ICANN presumably just for the
> functions the NRO needs done.  I don't think this is a big deal, but
> it might be worth saying something about how termination is expected
> to be handled.  If this is implied in the retention of the existing
> framework, perhaps an additional sentence making this slightly plainer
> would be helpful.
> 
> Again, on the whole I think this proposal is very much the right way
> to go.  I regard the above issues as small and not as showstoppers.
> My thanks to the group that put it together.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Andrew
> 




More information about the ianaxfer mailing list