Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

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.

Yes.

I read http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order

>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.

Ok.

>  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.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy