Internet Numbers Registries
draft-housley-number-registries-04

[Ballot comment]
like some others teetering on the brink of discuss:

>  However, the 16-bit AS numbers are really just zero through
  65535 of the 32-bit AS number space.

they are, but really implementation wise they fill the least signficant 16 bits. which is why the silly dot notation existed.

[Ballot discuss]
I have no problems with the publication of this document, but I am concerned with the disagreement between the table listed in section 2.3 and RFC 6890 (which maps to the IANA registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml).  Why does the table in 2.3 *try* to aggregate the entries?  It appears that the attempt to aggregate has led to entries being omitted.  For example:

* The table in 2.3 says that link-local addresses fall under the 0::/8 range.  They don't.  Link-local addresses are in the FE80::/10 range.

* The table says 0::/8 covers the site-local address range, but it doesn't.  Additionally, site-local addresses are deprecated and not included in the IANA registry.

* There is no mention of the registration added by RFC 6052.

* There is no mention of the registration added by RFC 4193.

For clarity and correctness, I would recommend copying the registry verbatim in the document.  The same goes for the IPv4 special addresses in section 2.2 as well.

[Ballot comment]


- I didn't get the logic for why the registry content
should be included here again, such duplication seems
like a bad plan.

- I also didn't get the reason for this draft, and
neither did the secdir reviewer.

Sorry if I've missed the explanations for the above
in mail.

[Ballot discuss]
I'm going to elevate Adrian's comment to a DISCUSS.  He's right that the IANA Considerations should be removed (well, should say that there are no IANA actions, and that the information in there should be in the proper place(s) in the document.  Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 should say "through IETF Review [RFC5226]," instead of "through Internet Standards actions."

[Ballot comment]
Teetering on the brink of a Discuss.

There appears to be an IETF Last Call comment that was not addressed. I think the second issue (that of an apparent contradiction) needs to be resolved and is sort of Discussable.

===

Section 2.1 says...

  Reservations of special-purpose AS Numbers are made through Internet
  Standards actions.

Section 2.2 says...

  Reservation of special-purpose IPv4 addresses are made through
  Internet Standards actions.

Section 2.3 says...

  Reservation of special-purpose IPv6 addresses are made through
  Internet Standards actions.

Section 3 says...

  "IETF Review" as defined in [RFC5226] is required to reserve special-
  purpose AS numbers, IPv4 addresses, or IPv6 addresses.

1. 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 should have a reference to 5226
2. Section 3 contradicts 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.
3. Why is Section 3 present since there are no instructions for IANA?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-housley-number-registries-02.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

In each the special-purpose AS number, IPv4 and IPv6 address registries, IANA will specifically note that IETF Review, as defined in RFC 5226, is the mechanism for maintenance of those registries.  In addition to noting the "IETF Review" policy for special purpose assignments we will also document the policy for allocations to the RIRs.  The text we plan to use is:

"Allocated following the Global Policy published at: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing"

In addition, consistent with the notes in sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of the document, IANA will be adding Registration Procedure(s) sections to the IANA AS Numbers, IPv4 and IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments registries.

IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Internet Numbers Registries) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Internet Numbers Registries'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-01-22. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  RFC 7020 provides information about the Internet Numbers Registry
  System and how it is used in the distribution of autonomous system
  (AS) numbers and globally unique unicast Internet Protocol (IP)
  address space.

  This companion document identifies the IANA registries that are part
  of the Internet Numbers Registry System at this time.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-number-registries/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-number-registries/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

E-mail discussion with Geoff Huston comes up with better wording for the 2nd paragraph of Section 3. I am asking for Last Call, and have asked Russ to post a new version.

Here's my AD review.

Who from the RIR community has reviewed this?

  2001:0::/23    For IETF protocol assignments; reserved by [RFC2928]
  2001:0::/32    For TEREDO; reserved by [RFC4380]
  2001:2::/48    For benchmarking; reserved by [RFC5180]
  2001:db8::/32  For documentation; reserved by [RFC3849]
  2001:10::/28    For ORCHID; reserved by [RFC4843]

You seem to use two styles in listing addresses. At first I was puzzled why you had less entries in the draft that in the ipv4 registry. But you had put the short prefixes there only, not the longer more specific allocations. But in the above you you have 2001:0::/23 and yet you still list the entries under it.

3.  IANA Considerations

  An Internet Standards action that reserves special-purpose AS numbers
  or IPv4 addresses or IPv6 addresses is recorded in the relevant IANA
  registry as a Special Purpose designation, referencing the IESG-
  approved RFC that documents the reservation.

  IANA may designate special-purpose AS numbers or IPv4 addresses or
  IPv6 addresses to support testing, IETF experimental activities, or
  other special uses (e.g., anycast) associated with a standards-track
  protocol.

Can we we either (a) reference the relevant RFCs that grant these rules or (b) use the established terminology for IANA rules? Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of the text?

Jari