[ppml] My take on legacy resource proposal

[Dean Anderson]

> Things people agree on:

You haven't been paying attention to what people agree on.

> 3) Outdated whois records that are invalid should be marked as such -
> last modified date gives some indication.

People do not agree on 3.  That last modified date gives no indication.

> 4) If the reverse DNS isn't valid mark or remove it - txt records at
> the delegation point are perfect for this.

People do not agree on 4. 

> 6) Whois is more use to people trying to contact address holders than the address holders.

6 is nonsense.  Communication is 2way, and valued by both parties.


Responses to your take on what you consider the disagreements:

> 3) What services Legacy holders are entitled to.
> 
> My Take: No one promised Legacy holders reverse DNS, as previously
> stated it didn't exist when a lot of these allocation/assignments were
> made.  It CAN be used as a stick after everything else has been tried.  
> That doesn't mean it should be or that it will be effective.

This is historically inaccurate.  Reverse mapping has existed in concept
since RFC 883 (1983) and reverse DNS was created in RFC 1034/1035
(1987).  I don't know the exact date of the first In-addr operation, but
I suspect it was close to the RFC1034 date.

I suggest you read this proposed draft on reverse DNS status (and I hope
you urge the DNSOP group take it up and approve it)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status-00.txt


> Caveat: Someone may have some document contradicting the promise of
> reverse DNS but I doubt it was codified anywhere before 2050.  2050
> doesn't require support for reverse DNS on legacy blocks only on
> direct allocations from the RIRs.

It is true that reverse DNS isn't a required service. However,
discrimination would be problematic.

> 4) If 2050 applies to legacy space.
>
> My Take: Either it does or ARIN can reissue the space.
> That is, either ARIN is required to maintain legacy space per 2050 or it can reissue it.
>
> Caveat: 2050 seems to indicate only IANA can revoke legacy space.  If
> I was a legacy holder I would hope a court ruled that 2050 applies and
> only IANA can revoke legacy space.  This will wind up in court sooner
> or later.  The NETBLOCKS case still is not settled.  ARIN should
> really have a page dedicated to current legal actions and filings etc.  
> If the DoC steps in there is no telling what could happen.

RFC 2050 doesn't define anything. RFC2050 is a recommendation by the
technical consultant (IETF) to the operating authority of IANA
(ICANN/DoC)  ICANN/DoC can take that advice or reject it.


> 5) If there should be some codified penalty for not signing an RSA.
> 
> My Take: Legacy holders need to be brought into an RSA of some kind.  
> I don't know that we can get them to sign one that does anything other
> than codify their current status.  

We have an agreement already.  We don't need another one.  Our current 
status is already known and documented.

> Other RIRs have forced legacy
> holders to sign the current RSA.  The number of legacy blocks and
> legal environments are much different in those regions.

I don't know of anyone, at any RIR ever being 'forced' to sign a new RSA
on legacy blocks.  Signing a new RSA to get a new allocation is not what
I'd call being forced.

		--Dean


-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000