Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

This is good enough, so please push it forwards and thanks to
the editors.

I have 3 minor comments:

(1) On p11 I see this:
   To address issues raised by the IETF community relating to
   intellectual property rights, the IAOC is asked to engage the
   appropriate parties, both inside and outside the IETF, to make clear
   that data in the protocol parameters registries is in the public
   domain.

I'm not sure if "public domain" is the right legal/copyright term
here. I guess ask a lawyer at some stage, but the intent is correct
and, other than possibly not being in lawyerly language, clear

(2) Also on p11:
   To address a desire by the IETF community to have mechanisms that
   allow for additional dispute resolution between the IETF and the
   current IANA protocol registries operator, the IAOC is asked to
   conclude a supplemental agreement regarding jurisdiction and any
   necessary dispute resolution mechanisms that are mutually acceptable
   to the parties.

I have no such desire and I find the last clauses vague to the point
of meaninglessness. It's not clear to me if the WG do or do not have
that desire (the chairs will call that) nor whether that'd survive
IETF LC even if the WG have that opinion. I think deleting this
paragraph would be better, but am fine that rough consensus to keep
it or not is determined by the WG chairs and IETF LC.

(3) A pure nit: p16 says:
   The IESG established the IANAPLAN working group to develop this
   response.

That is correct, but followed external review allowing any IETF
participant to comment on WG formation, as usual. And the charter
of the WG also says:

  The system in place today for oversight of the IETF protocol
  registries component of the IANA function works well. As a result,
  minimal change in the oversight of the IETF protocol parameters
  registries is preferred in all cases and no change is preferred when
  possible.

I think calling out that the charter was essentially subject to IETF
review and that the charter says the above would both be good to do.
I agree that that's redundant, but think it could be worth it in this
case.

Cheers and thanks,
S.



On 28/10/14 14:42, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> Hello, given the proposed timeline agreed during our last interim
> meeting and based on that the outstanding issues should have been
> addressed in the -02 version, this message starts a working group
> last call on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.  This working group
> last call will end november 11, 23h59 UTC. Given that our meeting is
> scheduled on november 10th, it would be useful if people send their
> comments prior to the meeting so they can be addressed or discussed
> before or during the meeting.
> 
> Draft:
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.txt
> 
> Please send comments to the list.
> 
> Regards, Marc&Leslie, co-chairs. 
> _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing
> list [e-mail] 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>