[ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources

[Edward Lewis]

At 11:26 -0700 7/10/07, Owen DeLong wrote:

Regarding categorizing the status of a number resource:

>What about a tri-state variable:
>
>In-Use	   --	Confirmed valid contact information within the last year
>                Contact verifies that addresses are still in active use.
>Abandoned --	Unable to reach contact.  Good faith efforts to contact
>                organization and contacts have failed. in-addr delegation
>                is lame/broken, not visible in routing table.
>Unknown   --	Similar to Abandoned, but, efforts to reach the org. and/or
>                its contacts have not been completed yet.

Realistically, the latter two are the same.  There may be a many 
month process for contacting anyone related to a number resource, 
that is true, but unless there is a (fairly) concretely defined 
process, it's hard to distinguish between "can't reach them" and 
"haven't reached them yet." It's like that Turing machine thing from 
school.

A few months ago I threw onto the list a question of whether we 
should have whois report the RSA status of a resource and received no 
words of support.  (Reminded me of a commercial with the punch line 
"It hurts when they boo.")  I would think that if we knew if the 
resource was legacy or not and when the record was last updated we 
would have some (what?) information.  Perhaps we would want a last 
verified date or some way for a 3rd party to report misinformation (I 
saw someone else propose this on PPML today).

I say this because, well, I don't know what we get with that 
tri-state variable.

I would like to throw this question on the list...what's the purpose 
of trying to do, umm, this?  If it is just to verify the registration 
information, let's do a policy like 2005-1 and 2002-1 for WhoIs. 
(Not a novel concept, ICANN wants accuracy in WhoIs for domain 
names.)  If it is to identify abandoned number resources that can be 
brought back in from legacy status so they can be be issued again, is 
the expectation that there is enough space that will be made 
available to make it worth it?  Do we want to reclaim only class A's 
(as opposed to /8's, if you get my meaning), class B's or anything 
larger than a /20 (say)?  Are legacy class C's worth the effort?

Sorry if I keep returning to the reclaimation issue - I realize 
Andrew's message said it was a non-goal, but, well, maybe I'm reading 
more into the "not visible in the routing table" and "effort to reach 
the org"anization as prelude to wanting unused space back in the 
fold.  Correct me if I am missing the point.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Think glocally.  Act confused.