Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 11 February 2015 10:08 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 151BB1A87A2 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:08:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.663
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 IwcN6VKNa1wP for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:08:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EA141A8774 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:08:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 16082 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2015 10:08:44 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2015 10:08:44 -0000
Date: 11 Feb 2015 10:08:21 -0000
Message-ID: <20150211100821.4475.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <2CC076A5-50D5-4A89-AA5B-F0FF7346CE82@vigilsec.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/5cJhWRgzsWmFdDWp6k1gksIR7-Q>
Cc: housley@vigilsec.com
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
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, 11 Feb 2015 10:08:47 -0000

>(1) Whoever hold the IANA Trademark needs to provide explicit permission
>for it to be used by all parties that have a role with the IABA
>registries, be it oversight, policy development, or operations.

That would be nice.  On the other hand, were the dung to hit the
impeller and we had to call our part of IANA the IETF Protocol
Parameter Registry at ietfppr.org, how much of a practical problem
would that really be?  The handful of programs that scrape data from
it automatically would have to be updated, and the people who look
stuff up by hand would have a one time surprise where they go to
iana.org, find that it's changed, do some googlage on "what happened
to the iana protocol registry" and update their bookmark.

The parameter registry data are clearly important, but I don't see why
we need to place a great emphasis on the IANA name.  I understand its
historical and sentimental importance, but not its practical
importance.

R's,
John