Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

S Moonesamy <> Mon, 01 September 2014 20:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435C71A06E8 for <>; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 13:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.823
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.823 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BZmzaTa2nBdg for <>; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 13:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08BCD1A06EA for <>; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 13:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s81KNU75017453 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Sep 2014 13:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1409603029; x=1409689429; bh=A62dOneQWnc7Mu4A/0bwSRIaUwE84M82/PhvvaXuAdo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=2V/GjbPWiOkvmOHWJ4DE6wU5LMFo/WO6FWMrkt3GleCn5U3LpUf+aQ5kZAQJcKs1U PMXkw2gekvT7k5Y1EsckSvkb9FTT+ymtvxJrPrCEpYFCCU75hY7dk3thijpzeITrKG RvR9MxDufxKlRoONpXzjtjvNXa15RLLxw9U6BQqg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1409603029; x=1409689429;; bh=A62dOneQWnc7Mu4A/0bwSRIaUwE84M82/PhvvaXuAdo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=1qd7UHjNGtWrjBZARGoFyIhoNQOCRhCl1Sd6pKmxHInXjlkLm84htLV/3a3qROFGQ 2Uf/8ZRHwbpyUZFPhJHIUC4lEHLvNLj7PxF33TmOZjtX9Us1ZJT0ccMIdAy4nmm/vG sGbD7xFEV9M4e59obz744Juln/Qus4yW1Vbsya4A=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 10:23:43 -0700
To: Eric Burger <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 20:23:55 -0000

Hi Eric,
At 09:14 01-09-2014, Eric Burger wrote:
>I think the disconnect is we talk about ICANN so much we think 
>anything that starts with an 'I' means ICANN. IANA is the Internet 
>Assigned Numbers Authority. IANA has /nothing/ to do with ICANN, 
>except for the fact that ICANN /happens/ to perform the IANA 
>function. They are a contractor for the IETF. IANA is /not/ ICANN.


I read

>The IANA function is separable from domain names and IP addresses, 
>although there are economies of scale and management from keeping 
>them together. Since the IANA function is created by fiat from the 
>IETF contract, I see no problem using the terms "IETF Protocol 
>Parameters Registry" and the "IANA function." The IANA function is 
>the /embodiment/ of the IETF Protocol Parameters Registry.

I understand the above.

>However, I agree with your next comment, and I have some proposed text.

I'll comment below.

>Please see my previous comment about that.
>I agree with you here: the use of the term IANA protocol parameter 
>registry is sloppy.


>  Let's go with:
>Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined protocol 
>parameters. Implementers use these parameters. Implementers are the 
>IETF's primary users of the IETF standards and other documents.  A 
>globally available registry contains the parameter values and a 
>pointer to documentation of the associated semantic intent. This 
>registry, the IETF Protocol Parameters Registry, provides this 
>service to ensure consistent interpretation of these parameter 
>values by independent implementations.  Historically, the Internet 
>Assigned Numbers Authority has, under contract, operated the IETF 
>Protocol Parameters Registry.

That sounds better.

>Eliot addressed this issue better than I did. The substantive issue 
>is that we have an open process that already has all of the major 
>players (and lots of minor players like me) involved.

I would not describe you as a minor player.  I commented about 
participation in my reply to Eliot.

>The IAB operates on behalf of the IETF. I don't see the issue.

Please see my comment to Eliot.

>On the one hand, we have a lot of references to IETF documents. On 
>the other hand, if a casual reader thinks we do not have enough 
>references, we can have more.

The point was to be able to substantiate what is in the text of the 
draft.  As an example, there are is a reference for the intent to 
form a working group.

S. Moonesamy