[cooperation-wg] publication of data about legacy resources

In message <5C133E8B-8390-48F8-93D3-1F5AB641BEAC at rfc1035.com>, at 
10:46:23 on Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> writes
>On 22 Sep 2014, at 10:34, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>
>> If so, then the IANA table should be clearly annotated so that people 
>>know that the "Designation" for these non-RIR legacy entries is the 
>>name of the organisation that the allocation was *originally* made to.
>
>That just provides other sticks: "what happened to 16/8 after DEC 
>died?",

That's Richard Hill's question, and the answer has to lie somewhere 
within the successor companies to whom various aspects of the business 
were transferred/sold.

If it was broken up, then perhaps the listing should be removed from 
IANA's /8 table, and re-documented in smaller fragments to relevant 
RIRs. If it's still under one entity's overall control, why can't IANA 
tell us [ARIN knows, it's claimed].

>"why is Stanford University listed as holding 28/8 when it no longer 
>uses that space?", "when will MIT hand back 18/8?" etc, etc.

As far as I know both of those still exist, and maybe the listed 
contacts are even traceable (I haven't tried, but it seems more likely 
than the other examples here).

Questions like "why does MIT have more address space than the whole of 
China" would be even harder to debunk if MIT had in fact ceased to 
exist, and this wasn't recorded somewhere easy-to-find at IANA.
-- 
Roland Perry