[cooperation-wg] publication of data about legacy resources

In message <633C224A-AC27-4423-95E4-2765E5798C88 at rfc1035.com>, at
15:13:49 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> writes
>> So maybe all that is needed is for the RIRs to publish the
>> blocks that are assigned to them, so that it is easy to find out which WHOIS
>> to query.
>
>IANA already publishes which RIR holds which /8. Querying the IANA whois server for an IP address tells you which whois server to query for
>that IP address.
>
>> Or maybe it would suffice to have an aggregated WHOIS.
>
>Given that the problem seems to be satisfactorily addressed already, it's not clear what more needs to be done or why. Can you please provide a
>clear problem statement so we can work out what solution(s) can best deal with that?

The problem is one of public confidence in the system, when as was
brought to my attention a few years ago, the IANA entry for 51/8 was
pointing at a UK Government Department which had ceased to exist some
five years previously.

Several questions then arise:

  Did the need for the allocation die along with the department, or was
  it transferred to a successor department (and if so which one and who
  is now the contact point).

  If the need did die, wouldn't be helpful to try to recover the
  address space.

  If it didn't die, why is neither the Government Department nor RIPE
  NCC apparently interested in the record-keeping being up to date. Five
  years is a very long time, and makes it look like there's no process
  in place to keep it up to date.

  When it's such a huge block of addresses, why is everyone apparently
  so apathetic?

Some might then start jumping to conclusions and ask:

  If you can't keep such a small number of global records up to date,
  what hope is there for keeping the much larger number of smaller
  records up to date?

Note: These aren't my questions, they are simply quite reasonable ones
which concerned members of the public (or even governments) might ask.

I'm not looking for answers, here.

>>> If the NRO is to take on that role, it
>>> will need extra funding and infrastructure. Which will presumably
>>> have to come from the RIRs who are already providing the funds
>>> and infrastructure which currently supports this function.
>>
>> True.  But the RIRs at present do make a financial contribution to ICANN,
>> presumably in part to fund the IANA function for the IP addresses.
>
>Indeed. But it is not up to the RIRs or anyone else who contributes money to (part) fund IANA to define what services IANA provides. At least
>not yet. Maybe that'll change if/when the DoC contract goes away.

The only service IANA needs to provide here is updating a very small
number of entries comprising the /8 allocation records, when the need
arises.

Also note I'm not suggesting the records for 51/8 are still out of date,
or need any maintenance.

Nor am I suggesting that the same ideas be applied to legacy blocks
smaller than a /8, because that doesn't seem to me to be anything to do
with "IANA oversight".
-- 
Roland Perry