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

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

I agree.  Though the issue is really whether people use conflicting 
sources of information - whether they are authoritative or not.

Which breaks down into two separate issues:
- what constitutes an "authoritative source," and,
- what do users perceive to be an authoritative source

My major take is that clear control and delegation of iana.org is a way 
of avoiding the potential for conflicting sources of information - by 
taking pains to make sure that iana.org is, and remains to be the 
well-publicized "official" and hence "authoritative" source of 
information, and that the data in it is managed by the party(ies) 
responsible for maintaining he authoritative data.

That's the current situation.  Let's craft a transition that makes an 
effort to keep it the situation in the event of a transition of iana.org 
contractor.

(note: I agree with those who seem to think we're spending way too much 
time on what seems to be a simple matter.  I honestly don't understand 
why this should be such an issue.)

Miles

Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> I responded to this mail but it seem my response did not get through. 
> I will try this again below:
>
> @Miles i think you may be referring to iana.org <http://iana.org> as 
> if operating systems services sync information off it in reatime which 
> is not necessarily the case. I would expect that a change in the 
> domain name will only require a normal OS update to reflect the 
> appropriate new url...No?
>
> What i would term disruptive is when there exist 2 sources of 
> authoritative information and when the information on the each source 
> is not the same. For example it would not be helpful if a source 
> reflects http being port 80 and another reflects it as another port. 
> So i would think being authoritative goes beyond a mere ownership of 
> iana.org <http://iana.org> but extend to the content itself.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Miles Fidelman 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     David Conrad wrote:
>
>         Miles,
>
>         On Nov 6, 2014, at 6:19 AM, Miles Fidelman
>         <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>             More specifically, I'm concerned with avoiding any
>             confusion or operational disruption in the event of future
>             conflicts among the parties involved in oversight,
>             management, and/or performance of the IANA functions -
>             particularly in the case where a transition of contractor
>             might occur on less then friendly terms.
>
>             Under such situations, it seems at least possible, if not
>             likely, that litigation might ensue and/or that parties
>             might operate competing registries - causing operational
>             confusion at a minimum, and possibly more serious
>             disruptions to smooth operation of the net.
>
>         We're talking about the protocol parameter registries, right?
>
>         I'm honestly curious: could you describe the "serious
>         disruptions to smooth operation of the net" or "operational
>         confusion" that would occur in the event of future conflicts
>         relating to the IANA trademark and/or IANA.ORG
>         <http://IANA.ORG> domain?
>
>
>
>     Kind of depends on the degree to which various developers depend
>     on the various registries published under iana.org
>     <http://iana.org>, and perhaps on the degree to which anybody
>     relies on automatic download of registry contents.
>
>     For example, the /etc/services file in Debian includes this statement:
>     #Updated from http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
>
>     I expect other operating systems do similar things.  A lot of
>     systems could break, rather precipitously, if iana.org
>     <http://iana.org> went offline, or the file were moved somewhere
>     else, or the file were corrupted - particularly if it happened
>     just before a major release cycle.
>
>     To me, that would be a "serious disruption" or at the very least
>     "operational confusion"
>
>
>
>     Miles Fidelman
>
>     -- 
>     In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>     In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ianaplan mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     /Seun Ojedeji,
>     Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>     web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>     Mobile: [phone]
>     //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>/
>
>         The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra