Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 27 May 2015 23:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DBAE1B2AC6 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2015 16:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LTvTUihP2_L0 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2015 16:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B401B2AC3 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2015 16:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA2A2CED5; Thu, 28 May 2015 02:41:28 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2VppMoOKTK20; Thu, 28 May 2015 02:41:28 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2CF2CED3; Thu, 28 May 2015 02:41:28 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_331A2777-30D3-4DD1-B532-1D16082FBB67"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBZq_U+CC5Jzv5T3pL7qasUHSfv-Gu8q4P36+phABXxzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 02:41:25 +0300
Message-Id: <4AB120DC-AFB1-4915-B6C5-7417FB989878@piuha.net>
References: <D15A3C14-F268-4CF1-B942-BAE57B281C58@cooperw.in> <556D3AAA-1655-4785-9395-8F6CD0B73E44@vigilsec.com> <5F8F0771-C77B-4D90-811B-501A4EC79268@istaff.org> <893FE3E3-A2DD-40D8-B39F-1EB24DFE1806@vigilsec.com> <97267ED7-D8A2-4A64-AB74-07434190DD89@piuha.net> <CA+9kkMBZq_U+CC5Jzv5T3pL7qasUHSfv-Gu8q4P36+phABXxzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/1TXPsEIcR_kbGrRvQf4G8okEL3Q>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 23:41:31 -0000

> ​Should we not summarize these issues here?​

Sure. I was lazy to add the text…

>  
> The update
> has been drafted and from our perspective could be
> immediately executed. When executed — and with
> the NTIA contract with ICANN is voided -- from our
> perspective the protocol parameter community
> has completed the stewardship transition.​
> 
> Would this also work: "Once these SLAs are in place, the transition would be substantially complete, with only the NTIA contract lapse or termination as a final step. “ ?

Yes - that would be better. Thanks.

> ​I think we may want to highlight this slightly differently.
> 
> "In addition, the names community has proposed the creation of a 'Post Transition IANA' (PTI).  If the existing agreements between the IETF and ICANN remain in place and the SLAs discussed above are not affected, the IETF​ transition would take place as described above.  That is our preference.  If the final details of the PTI plan require further action from the IETF, more work and community agreement would be required.  The timeline for that work cannot be set until the scope is known.”

This is better too.

Jari