IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 02 September 2014 14:08 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 99E0D1A03A4 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 07:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 vPcJFGQoQwqt for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 07:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AF4D1A037C for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 07:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1796; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409666931; x=1410876531; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=r7TpteKSLzxVdwReZbsDKhrf44uvvOh7JFSRuOhWMBc=; b=WtQ0jldKHWcC4UDBgrxYRkHvMTDEG22X8NxhCCPddCRCo0nDGnISbzsZ wb5M60IVg1vborjHOquwYuoFuPH9ZUKc8a2ZRInVS53EtTeDGAfZ4RyRE 0hGL0kGW8B2W0ha6q7PbfDU30605n8O5+3Wk43+0+38dSliNchJTsT9O0 o=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 486
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqIEAG3OBVStJssW/2dsb2JhbABZhzPMZQGBKHeEBAEBBCNVARALDgoJFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGAQwBBwEBiD6lfpRjARePTQeCeYFTAQSTN4FKh1uHN41ng2M7gn4BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,449,1406592000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="158512649"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Sep 2014 14:08:49 +0000
Received: from [10.61.91.253] (ams3-vpn-dhcp7166.cisco.com [10.61.91.253]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s82E8nOl022331; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 14:08:49 GMT
Message-ID: <5405CF6B.3050704@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:08:43 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, rhill@hill-a.ch, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNOEGHCKAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <54059FA9.50107@meetinghouse.net> <5405A18B.2060604@cs.tcd.ie> <5405CDEF.6040302@meetinghouse.net>
In-Reply-To: <5405CDEF.6040302@meetinghouse.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xpqktDwi0kfWLLwKd4mnx7HaT7jwllO8M"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/CrhbgCLsoul_0afntG0cuUMtunc
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
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: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:08:53 -0000

Miles,

On 9/2/14, 4:02 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> Yes, but the MOU can be withdrawn from.  Right now, the NTIA contract
> "backstops" the MOU.  The question becomes: what, if anything replaces
> that backstop?  If I were NTIA, I'd sure like to see that answered 
> before stepping away.

Yes, but what does that mean in this case?  If the IETF were to
terminate the arrangement, would ICANN still review our documents, and
if so, would we not take them seriously?  The worst case would be
ICANN's copy of protocol parameters didn't match our own, and at that
point, developers would have to decide who to believe.  This would not
be a good state to be in, but realistically anyone else can do the same
thing.  And truly it would serve nobody's interest for this to happen,
not ours, not ICANN's and certainly not implementers'.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email