Re: [Ianaplan] I-D Action: draft-lear-iana-icg-response-00.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 10 September 2014 22:21 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 D32B31A6FFC for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 42YY7HD0yJzB for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22e.google.com (mail-pa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A3E81A020B for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id kq14so5525160pab.19 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8jZvtHvA39TLrUvTx3PLlHcQ7Yz9Eid9nWYcMSxz46E=; b=OeoegjNcpdM6LkhRQ6Rf1+cxMP/M31OrdAp/Xm5dKgOR5UG5VDISomFszIzGjHQLrv Q6CWk2K3oZENG8akvBFiwy3fWws5b7jQd3EBafBwpeKfPjJO3BZFp5a1mN7rGj+oJku6 S37GmWmXNDFfPo/tHzzMlGGSbs/q4DoVYGHsAyjQANVDef+0Lw+1wEigY3/NZF2lZ5mn IgSgoTorrFXAgRwwSra7CDwQJzbtcC48LsoIR8AAVUg9WUstCI0dXQ3kYrEQQEZF6P1V o17a33F+KeZiXAFJvfYNk2GOauR0gN7pqaoAXRX+3uFcYFdFoEo99kkPWrRN+hT/gDSm xE3A==
X-Received: by 10.70.43.201 with SMTP id y9mr71039158pdl.111.1410387706130; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (4.195.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.195.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id om6sm15555515pdb.89.2014.09.10.15.21.43 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5410CF00.5000506@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 10:21:52 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
References: <20140830063916.1613.19503.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <540CC133.8070105@gmail.com> <54104F40.90308@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <54104F40.90308@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/5XqPNnEyKMhortJrNIC7U9celP4
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] I-D Action: draft-lear-iana-icg-response-00.txt
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, 10 Sep 2014 22:21:49 -0000

Thanks Eliot. I have trimmed what follows to points where
something still seems to be open; otherwise I'm happy with your
responses.

On 11/09/2014 01:16, Eliot Lear wrote:
...
>>>    o  The IETF has specified a number of special use registries.  These
>>>       registries require coordination with the GNSO.  We already perform
>>>       this coordination.
>> Add: These include certain IP addresses reserved by the IETF for technical
>> reasons.
> The first part of the text refers to RFC 6761.  What you are talking
> about is covered separately in RFC 6890.  I am not sure this strictly
> counts as overlap (see another message I just sent).  I propose that we
> add appropriate references to both, and to clarify the first bullet as
> follows:
> 
>           The IETF has specified a number of special use registries
>           with regard to domain names.  These registries require
>           coordination with the GNSO.  We already perform this
>           coordination.[RFC6761]

Yes. I was confused. I do think that coordination with the ASO needs to be
mentioned with regard to special purpose addresses.
...
>>>    A.  Policy Sources
>> ...
>>>    o  Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
>>>       affected.
>>>
>>>    IETF Respponse: The protocol parameters registry.
>> Add: This includes technical reservations in the IP address registry
>> and the domain name registry as noted above.
> 
> This issue requires more input, in my opinion.

Yes, it's a delicate point of phrasing but I think the point
needs to be made somehow. To be specific, I am referring to
at least the following:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml#iana-ipv4-special-registry-1
http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml#iana-ipv6-special-registry-1
http://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xhtml#special-use-domain

>>>    The IAB provides oversight of the protocol parameter registries of
>>>    the IETF, and is responsible for selecting appropriate operator(s)
>>>    and related per-registry arrangements.  Especially when relationships
>>>    among protocols call for it, many registries are operated by, or in
>>>    conjunction with, other bodies.  Unless the IAB or IETF has concluded
>>>    that special treatment is needed, the operator for registries is
>>>    currently ICANN.
>> Add:
>>
>> Day to day responsibility for declaring IETF consensus on technical decisions,
>> including those that affect IANA, lies with the IESG. The IESG members are
>> also appointed by the NOMCOM process described above.
> 
> The question is who provides oversight and accountability.  That is not
> a function for the IESG, but for the IAB.  I have no problem including
> this text elsewhere, if you can tell me where that "elsewhere" should be ;-)

Well, I would include the IESG in "oversight" because they are the first
point of appeal after the WG chair. So I think we disagree on where
this fits.

That said, it could be fitted into the response to
      o A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity.
       [N.B. the IETF response has swapped this question with the next.]
where you mention the IESG.

Nit alert: I just noticed that you have "the Internet Engineering Steering
Community", which is an amusing concept ;-).

Regards
    Brian