[Ietf-not43] Comments on draft-ietf-crisp-iris-areg-02.txt

[Tim Christensen]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, George Michaelson wrote:

> Andy, this is a very bad space to be defining 'ENUMERATED' type values for. The
> status is a matter of policy, within each RIR region, and is dynamic: it changes
> in the 3-5 year timeframe. It would be a mistake to lock into RFC status
> specific values for this kind of field, its not really in IETF definitional
> space.
>
> If its not possible to take a DB schema approach, and define this as being a
> keyword-value restricted element, where the value set is locally defined, in
> some external process, then I would suggest it might be best left as a simple
> string type, with no applied 'business logic' on it.
>
> PI and PA are actually deprecated terms. We now refer to ALLOCATED PORTABLE and
> ALLOCATED NON-PORTABLE and ASSIGNED PORTABL and ASSIGNED NON-PORTABLE but this
> is a matrix of values, and there are emerging changes in both RIPE and APNIC
> region.
>

As there are changes from time to time in the ARIN region.  I agree,
attempting to enumerate a list is non-value-added and out of IETF scope.


To quote Ginny's previous mail and agree with George,

> Perhaps it should be
> reworded to not be limited.

BTW, ARIN does not use the PA and PI terms, either.
(Provider-assigned and Provider-independent, if memory serves, but since
we don't use them don't quote me as the authority ;) )

Tim Christensen

Database Administrator
American Registry for Internet Numbers