The Internet Numbers Registry System
RFC 7020

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Richard Barnes) Yes

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

Comment (2013-06-21 for -01)
No email
send info
This doc seems fine. I do have one question that could very well be unrelated, but I'll ask anyway.

This doc uses the word "multi-stakeholder" in Section 5, but doesn't define it. There are a number of fine words in the following paragraph, but I'm not seeing anything that looks like "and by 'multi-stakeholder', we mean ...".

My understanding was that we've been running into people who don't have the same understanding of that word that we do (to the point of "of course we're multi-stakeholder! we invite ALL the governments!")

Is there anything like an agreed-upon definition this document could reference?

If not, is this the wrong place to say something about what we think that word means?

(Sean Turner) Yes

Comment (2013-06-20 for -01)
No email
send info
r/RFC 1366/[RFC1366]  and add it in the references section.

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2013-06-24 for -01)
No email
send info
The IANA site points to RFC2050 as technical documentation in at least one place. I am therefore surprised that there is no IANA action to trigger IANA to update their document pointers.

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2013-06-27 for -01)
No email
send info
I think that Pete makes a good point wrt removing a BCP from the register.
It also seems to me that 2050 and the document it in turn obsoleted (etc. back into pre-history) should all now be formally marked as Historic.
Let's not have a debate about what 2026 says and means, but just consider how we want BCP 12 to "disappear".

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2013-07-01)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my discuss.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Comment (2013-06-27 for -01)
No email
send info
One expects the RIRs to have to scrub all their policy documents of 2050 related references... Some of which will require policy work through their respective processes...

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

Comment (2013-06-27 for -01)
No email
send info
Minor editorial nit:
OLD:
   This document does not propose any changes to the Internet Numbers
   Registry System, but it does provide information about the current
   Internet Numbers Registry System used in the distribution of globally
   unique Internet Protocol (IP) address space and autonomous system
   (AS) numbers, while also providing for further evolution of the
   Internet Numbers Registry System.
NEW:
   This document does not propose any changes to the Internet Numbers
   Registry System. It does provide information about the current
   Internet Numbers Registry System used in the distribution of globally
   unique Internet Protocol (IP) address space and autonomous system
   (AS) numbers.   It also provides for further evolution of the
   Internet Numbers Registry System.

I think my proposed new text isn't as elegant, but it will be easier to parse.

Otherwise the document looks good.

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2013-06-26 for -01)
No email
send info
A strictly procedural point, and it does not prevent this document from moving forward at all, but we should figure out what the "right" thing is here. I'm forwarding to the RFC Editor to get their feedback:

This is an Informational document that is Obsoleting a BCP. I am convinced that everyone during Last Call understood the implication of that, so I don't think we need to go back and do something special there. But does the IESG need to do some magical incantation to remove BCP 12 from the BCP Index? We could make 2050 HISTORIC, which would make it clear, or simply treat it as bookkeeping on the RFC Editor web site.

This is the first time I've ever seen this happen, so it's not surprising we don't have a procedure for this.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection