Re: [sidr] I-D Action:draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00.txt

[Terry Manderson <terry at terrym.net>]

Post Geoff's presentation today I thought I would quickly email  
regarding one point he mentioned, and no one contested.

The authors of the draft believe that there should not be an IANA  
considerations section as there are no protocol number requirements.  
While the general interpretation of RFC2434 relates to protocol  
numbers, I think it is important to note that the descriptor to use is  
'a namespace' and, in that RFC, is far more broad. I feel as rpki  
relates so tightly to a set of known registries that an IANA  
considerations section can be used with without major issues. (and  
demonstrated in RFC3152 which directs the IANA to a course of action)

While I tend to agree with Dave's on mic comments that there needs to  
be a binary decision and then a pros/cons section in a (the) draft to  
discuss _technical_ observations between single and multiple TAs, I  
feel it does not detract from the authors stance of sitting on the  
fence to promote the existing "recommendation" regarding IANA being a  
default TA for public address space to the IANA Considerations section  
and maintained post RFC publication.

I would like to say, in the post glow of the WG meeting, that I really  
appreciate and commend Geoff for identifying his previous  
organisational attitude towards previous authored drafts and his  
efforts to present a view that is distanced from his employer. Thankyou.

and slightly askew..
Do I think that process was side-stepped in this draft going straight  
to WG status and not via an individual submission? Maybe, but I do  
observe that while there was objection regarding the Co-chairs  
decision I suspect it would be process alone that would require a  
token individual submission before becoming a WG item. So its not  
going to burn me if it stays as a WG item. Equally if it serves the  
proper and just process to make it a indv. submission I can go there  
too as a WG participant.

Cheers
Terry