[Ianaplan] Comment on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

The document says:

> In this context, the IETF considers "overlap" to be where there is in some way shared responsibility for a single registry across multiple organizations. In this sense, there is no overlap between organizations because responsibility for each registry is carefully delineated. There are, however, points of interaction between other organizations, and a few cases where we may further define the scope of a registry for technical purposes. This is the case with both names and numbers, as described in the paragraphs below. In all cases, the IETF engages directly with the appropriate organizations to ensure that each organization’s policies are followed.

We should add a paragraph after that one that considers a future where names, numbers, and protocol parameters do not use the sam operator.  I suggest:

"At present, there is a single IANA functions operator maintaining the IANA registries for the names, numbers, and protocol parameters.  Having a single IANA functions operator aids coordination.  However, in the future, delegated registries may be maintained by the responsible organization directly or by a contracted registry maintenance vendor so long as any necessary coordination is maintained."

Russ