[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

  Was: To: ietf at ietf.org; ppml at arin.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net

> > The US DoC has as much say for ARIN as it does for the RIPE NCC.
>
> The US DoC, through IANA functions, says, e.g., what IP Address blocks
> each can allocate.  That seems to qualify as 'much say'

So it seems that you and Ray are in agreement. All the other details are
not terribly relevant to RIR policy discussions because we have
processes
and structures to make sure that everything is done properly. We have no
plans to change any of the structures because at the present time, they
seem to work OK.

As for the matter that started this, central ULAs, there is not need to
worry about who controls what. The fact is that it is customary for new
address types to be defined *FIRST* in the IETF and even if there is the
possibility of an alternate process, we would not dream of exercising
that
unless the customary process, via the IETF, had broken down.

The IETF process cannot be considered broken just because a draft has
expired. In fact, expiry of a draft indicates that the original authors
no
longer care enough about the matter to progress it further. The WG chair
of IPv6 Operations has already offered the v6ops list
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html
For those people who *DO* wish to progress a draft for Central ULA
addresses. This is a sign that the IETF process is open for business in
this case.

At this point, I think it is inappropriate to continue the Central ULA
discussion on the RIR policy lists. In fact, if any policy were to come
out of such a discussion, I would vote against it even though my company
could potentially benefit from something like a Central ULA address
block.
But at the same time, my company supports the IETF process in general
and
I don't believe we would want to be perceived as usurping the IETF. That
is why I would vote against any policy proposal that is not based on an
RFC.

I urge all of you who have an interest in Central ULA addresses, both
pro
and con, to take your discussion to the v6ops list. And I urge the
people
in favour of Central ULA addresses to write an Internet draft explaining
just what it is that you want to do. At this point in time, there is no
valid draft document so I don't even know what it is that you are
discussing.

--Michael Dillon