Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 29 May 2015 15:49 UTC
Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 472FC1ACD5C for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2015 08:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 JD6cAiexYNrP for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2015 08:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADBBD1ACD5A for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2015 08:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E5B9A4070 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2015 11:49:44 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q0UHBt+ZTCN9 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2015 11:48:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-108-51-128-219.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.51.128.219]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C431D9A4057 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2015 11:49:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-166--659181176"
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 11:49:11 -0400
In-Reply-To: <C8B9D0E8-C363-4618-8941-D0027B86EB7A@piuha.net>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <D15A3C14-F268-4CF1-B942-BAE57B281C58@cooperw.in> <556D3AAA-1655-4785-9395-8F6CD0B73E44@vigilsec.com> <5F8F0771-C77B-4D90-811B-501A4EC79268@istaff.org> <893FE3E3-A2DD-40D8-B39F-1EB24DFE1806@vigilsec.com> <97267ED7-D8A2-4A64-AB74-07434190DD89@piuha.net> <CA+9kkMBZq_U+CC5Jzv5T3pL7qasUHSfv-Gu8q4P36+phABXxzg@mail.gmail.com> <4AB120DC-AFB1-4915-B6C5-7417FB989878@piuha.net> <55669A78.3020309@cisco.com> <C8B9D0E8-C363-4618-8941-D0027B86EB7A@piuha.net>
Message-Id: <6BCB4C30-034A-4D13-AD89-88B0719DB75C@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/WbClFlqCaM9zOnBntiOnx3MTGN4>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry
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, 29 May 2015 15:49:57 -0000
Thanks for pulling all of the pieces together. I t looks good to me. I think it should be signed by the IANAPLAN WG Chairs. They were the ones that received the letter. Russ P.S. Should we put the letter and the response in the liaison system to make them easy to find? On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote: Eliot: > I like the text below modulo one issue: the IANAPLAN proposal did not specify how the IAOC would implement the requested changes (whether through the SLA or another side agreement). I would prefer that we stuck to that approach and not name which agreement the changes go into (SLA or a one-time supplemental agreement). Ok. Trying to take this and Ted’s comments into account: “The IETF is ready today to take the next steps in the implementation of the transition of the stewardship. In our case, most of the necessary framework is already in place and implemented in preceding years. The remaining step is an updated agreement with ICANN which addresses two issues. These issues are outlined in Section 2.III in the Internet Draft draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09.txt: o The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties acknowledge that fact as part of the transition. o It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries or other resources currently located at iana.org. The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has decided to use an update of our yearly IETF-ICANN Service Level Agreement (SLA) as the mechanism for this updated agreement. They have drafted the update and from our perspective it could be immediately executed. Once the updated agreement is in place, the transition would be substantially complete, with only the NTIA contract lapse or termination as a final step. Of course, we are not alone in this process. Interactions with other parts of the process may bring additional tasks that need to be executed either before or after the transition. First, the ICG, the RIRs, and IETF have discussed the possibility of aligning the treatment of IANA trademarks. The IETF Trust has signalled that it would be willing to do this, if asked. We are awaiting to coordination on this to complete, but see no problem in speedy execution once the decision is made. From our perspective this is not a prerequisite for the transition, however. In addition, the names community has proposed the creation of a 'Post Transition IANA' (PTI). If the existing agreements between the IETF and ICANN remain in place and the SLAs discussed above are not affected, the IETF ransition would take place as described above. That is our preference. If the final details of the PTI plan require further action from the IETF, more work and community agreement would be required. The timeline for that work cannot be set until the scope is known.” Jari
- [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Russ Housley
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Russ Housley
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Russ Housley
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Tobias Gondrom
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Jari Arkko
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Ted Hardie
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Jari Arkko
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Jari Arkko
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Ted Hardie
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Marc Blanchet
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Jari Arkko
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Bob Hinden
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Russ Housley
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Ray Pelletier
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Jefsey
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Milton L Mueller
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Russ Housley
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Bob Hinden
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Jari Arkko
- [Ianaplan] The seventh stakeholder [was: Time fra… JFC Morfin
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Jari Arkko
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Jefsey