Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Jefsey <jefsey@jefsey.com> Mon, 09 February 2015 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <jefsey@jefsey.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 004801A047A for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:38:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.631
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] 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 LdMdMAyFNaJm for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:38:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 501951A0451 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:38:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 249.174.199.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.199.174.249]:56472 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <jefsey@jefsey.com>) id 1YKpTh-00038H-Gh; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 06:38:21 -0800
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:38:17 +0100
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>,Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
From: Jefsey <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net>
References: <F22D7C95-49EE-4BB9-9ED9-7475736A46C7@cooperw.in> <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/HpnP8L5k7rETHhIhoFreqt_3qRg>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:38:28 -0000
X-Message-ID:
Message-ID: <20150209144703.13931.12748.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>

Dear Jari,

IMHO the initial question is to know if the string "IANA" is to be a 
reserved string associated to the Internet Technology Repository 
whatever the TLD. If yes the Internet Technology documented by which 
SDO (since as per RFC 6852 there might be several ones in 
competition). If not is only "iana.org" ? What about "iana.arpa" ?

As you know, the IUWG works on the support of CLASS "FL" 
(Free/Libre). Should we agree some common reservation about these 
names or strings?
FYI we plan to support a CLASS syntax as discussed by http://dnsa.org 
(in French).

jfc

PS. Alissa, I am not sure you answered my previous mail. It would 
help making sure that IN and FL CLASSes support names like "IANA.ORG" 
in the same manner.

At 11:48 09/02/2015, Jari Arkko wrote:
>The IETF proposal did not set it as a requirement that ownership of
>IANA.ORG be transferred as a part of the transition. The RIR community
>needs to think if they believe it really is a requirement. But I guess that
>the question for us is from the IETF perspective, if other communities
>believe they need that, is the IETF community OK with that? If we are,
>there are some implications to the IETF Trust, some rules to think about
>for various future same/different/partially different IANA operator scenarios,
>and some negotiations about these. I think we can set most of that aside
>for the moment, as details to worry about later. But what is the high-level
>guidance from the IETF community on this?
>
> From my perspective the question that we should try to answer at the
>IETF is as follows. While we are (in my opinion) not changing our
>proposal - it stays at the "not required" state, is the IETF community
>OK with a change of ownership? The IETF and RIR proposals are
>only incompatible if they require the change _and_ we oppose it.
>
>FWIW, my read of the earlier discussion in IANAPLAN was that
>our opinion was "not required" rather than that we'd oppose it. If
>that is right, then the answer is perhaps that we'd be fine with
>that. Do I read that right, and what do others think?
>
>Jari
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ianaplan mailing list
>Ianaplan@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan