Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

 I agree as well. 



> On Nov 1, 2014, at 3:41 AM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Alissa's point goes a little beyond my comment on the same
> text, but having read this, I share her concerns.
> 
> S
> 
>> On 01/11/14 00:11, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> I’d like to pick up on one comment I made in my last review of the
>> document that did not get sufficiently addressed. It concerns this
>> text:
>> 
>> "To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to
>> transition to another operator, the IAOC is asked to conclude a
>> supplemental agreement that- ...
>> 
>> 2.  requires the transfer of any associated marks and identifiers to 
>> subsequent operators."
>> 
>> My problem with this is that one mark cannot be transferred to two
>> operators. So if we end up in a situation where there are multiple
>> IANA operators for different registries, how will it be decided who
>> gets the existing marks? If I were the current owner of such marks, I
>> don’t see how I could agree to this provision without foreclosing the
>> possibility that there may be multiple simultaneous operators in the
>> future. This is why I think this requirement should be stated as
>> requiring “cooperation with subsequent operators to minimize
>> confusion" associated with marks and identifiers, or some similar
>> language that provides a safeguard in the event of transition but
>> does not mandate specific transfer actions related to marks and
>> identifiers.
>> 
>> I also still find it quite problematic that this section requires the
>> IAOC to conclude supplemental agreements, instead of maintaining the
>> existing relationship that the IETF has with the IAOC wherein it is
>> the IAOC’s responsibility to determine the format in which is carries
>> out its responsibilities on behalf of the IETF.
>> 
>> Alissa
>> 
>> On Oct 28, 2014, at 7:42 AM, Marc Blanchet
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello, given the proposed timeline agreed during our last interim
>>> meeting and based on that the outstanding issues should have been
>>> addressed in the -02 version, this message starts a working group
>>> last call on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.  This working
>>> group last call will end november 11, 23h59 UTC. Given that our
>>> meeting is scheduled on november 10th, it would be useful if people
>>> send their comments prior to the meeting so they can be addressed
>>> or discussed before or during the meeting.
>>> 
>>> Draft:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.txt
>>> 
>>> Please send comments to the list.
>>> 
>>> Regards, Marc&Leslie, co-chairs. 
>>> _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing
>>> list [e-mail] 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing
>> list [e-mail] 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan