Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Fri, 22 May 2015 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 806FF1A8828 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2015 13:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 05m8GQe-F5Ac for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2015 13:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 200AD1A87F2 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2015 13:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8EF2CC5F; Fri, 22 May 2015 23:30:58 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EN8LDfe_wDpe; Fri, 22 May 2015 23:30:58 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73922CC5A; Fri, 22 May 2015 23:30:57 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C25871B8-9496-43D4-9C1B-6ACE14D16388"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <B8A5D91B-68E7-4EE1-BFA5-40764EF84F86@istaff.org>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 23:30:56 +0300
Message-Id: <A2184A0E-E521-43A7-ADB1-9C77832BDC79@piuha.net>
References: <5550F809.80200@cisco.com> <55511064.2000300@gmail.com> <CAOW+2dvBb4n4W=q7NoO_V1X+JoqvO1TWYBqPAEseY9T7vybj9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFn1SEkBSfk5H5ZjOqfiyaxPak_62cNcRR-SDFH2JJ2HxQumA@mail.gmail.c> <om@mac.com> <59edd953c1d349cfa377bcd72b514b7f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <C3D17473E06220755959AB78@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <27ed27614a6b47729043610f09ac197f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <88F741BF3D4C2A597622A70C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <44A0F230-A98C-4060-88E2-B20FE1DE1FC5@isoc.org> <14ff00ba1aae45f2a8f4befb896e2a08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <D17525F2-190B-4D00-AEBE-5AD96BA79E79@arin.net> <A026656644A030B7130B94B5@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <ad1d0707ff1b44eb9e48fef18d8e1268@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <687222FF507C0D3EDBD9CAAA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <000001d091f7$266de3f0$7349abd0$@ch> <51ce19bc2a93443586adcdd2fac3888a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <555BD28F.10402@gmail.com> <97E5874491A30994EC386C37@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <555CEDFF.5010601@gmail.com> <51E8C05D9CFB07754ECD13F5@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <DM2PR0301MB065543B4DCBCB7 51656B563DA8C20@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <a78386a2666240d48be0aba1fb543e75@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <9F5DADEC7B0F069BA5BCB67A@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <90712DBB-A97F-48AA-91D5-E1E18A395B33@istaff.org> <748A065C2DEF6DC717B0E802@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <B8A5D91B-68E7-4EE1-BFA5-40764EF84F86@istaff.org>
To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/BMQqX7poKqBVUuN8-fr634LfvIg>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF
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, 22 May 2015 20:31:02 -0000

John C & John C, :-)

>> Without either of those two kinds of
>> information, I do have an opinion about impact and risks to the
>> IETF, and have expressed it before, I think in my first note on
>> the subject: this is too complex, it introduces new risks of
>> non-transparent behavior that may be accountable to small groups
>> but is not even as accountable to the broader community as
>> ICANN's operation of IANA is today, and therefore should not be
>> considered acceptable.  
> 
> John -
> 
> You do not consider IETF's MOU for IANA services sufficient to 
> mitigate the risks associated with the CWG proposal? It would 
> be very useful for this community to understand what risks you 
> believe are not addressed by the present RFC 2860 MOU...

For what it is worth, I agree with the latter John. The important
part is our interface, and our ability to deal with any problems
that might occur. 

Jari