IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Fri, 07 November 2014 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jcurran@istaff.org>
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 317871A064C for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 14:45:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 CqAPAnZ6z0Ew for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 14:45:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AE771A19F6 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 14:45:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 65-123-255-137.dia.static.qwest.net ([65.123.255.137] helo=[172.26.18.51]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jcurran@istaff.org>) id 1XmsHd-0009k9-W7; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 22:45:34 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Originating-IP: 65.123.255.137
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/dOIZOMpkKKldEHy1H0+WZ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <D08284A2.137E31%jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 14:45:38 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <96ABCDA5-74A9-4930-B1D6-5A0119802457@istaff.org>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEOJCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <54594A50.4090305@meetinghouse.net> <20141105001731.GA30186@mx1.yitter.info> <54597BDB.7040305@meetinghouse.net> <5459BA98.1070006@gmail.com> <545A208A.7040304@meetinghouse.net> <631e3e3d29c843bd9c23151c63612989@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20141105154903.GI30379@mx1.yitter.info> <498a39b81b774192bd2d609b3feab35f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20141105234444.GM31320@crankycanuck.ca> <545ABCB0.5080206@meetinghouse.net> <8f3dcda6c3db4cd8be1b77444f987d59@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <D0805C27.136BE7%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <059f2b06a7b44f09b7568d8966861fb8@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <D0824FAD.137A42%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <bcb86b6995de41feba256567c114265d@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <D0826BB8.137BBD%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <545D42ED.3010201@cisco.com> <D08284A2.137E31%jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
To: "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/7ptlaQRDn3i7wOln-AjWR2JWIJE
Cc: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
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: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 22:45:38 -0000

On Nov 7, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Peterson, Jon <jon.peterson@neustar.biz> wrote:
> 
> Heh. I am not insisting that iana.org MUST NOT be transferred to the IETF
> Trust. Honestly, I think it would be a hassle for us at the end of the
> day, but if for some reason that is the best outcome for the Internet
> community, there would be no grounds to prohibit it. I'm just saying that
> for the purposes of this document, I don't want our ICG response to ask
> for it, and certainly not to demand it.

Jon - 

  Would you object to the IETF's ICG response proposing (under Section III)
  that "there needs to be a mechanism providing for ongoing cooperation 
  in the use of the IANA domain name and marks, supporting usage by the 
  IETF as they are presently used for the protocol parameter registries."  ?

  That would appear to be quite a different statement than proposing that 
  something must be transferred, but still allows identification of the 
  potential issue.

Thoughts?
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email