To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@sidn.nl>, Ed Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>, shollenbeck@verisign.com
cc:
Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
From:
Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Date:
Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:31:06 +0100
Content-Disposition:
inline
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Comments from IESG on draft-ietf-provreg-grrp-reqs-05.txt
(1) CORE used but not defined.
(2) Reference in appx to IANA ports only.
(3) 3.1[7] refers to transactional security without defining it.
(4) 3.4.2[2] talks about validity without defining it - in particular,
preemption not discussed.
(5) 3.4.3[2] has 1 IP address with multiple name servers. Is that really
what you want?
(6) 3.4.3 does not require the association of info with registrars, but
assumes it in [4].
(7) 3.4.5 does not require the ability to do unapproved transfer (such as
if registrar is dead).
(8) Section 4 (MUST not introduce limitations) is not really possible.
(9) Internationalization requirements are (surprisingly) reasonably OK.
(10) Searchability requirements are VERY weak (by ID only) - that is
probably how it should be.
(11) The ID has NSI-specific registrations in it even though its a WG doc,
i.e. if the registrations has to be done, they should be in a separate
document
(12) The IANA considerations says:
These assignments should be preserved as long as the corresponding systems
are operational. Additional IANA services might be required to support
testing and deployment of protocol implementations.
1/ how whould the IANA know to zap registrations?
(this partcular problem is removed if the NSI registrations are removed)
2/ how is the IANA to know what to do to do the additiopnal registrations?
paf