IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] making ARPA explicit (Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 06 November 2014 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 056101A88B2 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:36:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 RZl1EMwbcJL8 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:36:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22d.google.com (mail-pd0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E07C61A88A9 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:36:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f173.google.com with SMTP id v10so1545576pde.4 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 09:36:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=KuYDgdGBN4Ez8i3CzolEqkYN6zv8aCgd2ULC64ucO8E=; b=sqiaqYvwgqbNQzmNrWXWX/xWxHmKNK/CZbtFSNQtVafRVoa9EvM8l/xkNjXnGMeOjl CsfjoKdVJr0fSYhRCLdOg8SU62BldI64BPp3ucBXEvKCjL5HExVyZLFG7bJmWr94LcOW dJYfjTVuI9XFhOAKFHZ246LdiyriTKb7hlwBkKSn3745cRRSH9S9quEavHs8DkHqPM15 hBy8UpCFzOFsuT+IslmRFyzZ38q5xi2/bMqyJLx9Zjv9jUzGk9z1tVsSXzEcjTX1z/Jh b5c2sRKoTFZjni1RJEKdSafkK92R5AKqR48ybBEmWjtap0vxgsxiBIqAgcaISXJiuTR+ 48tw==
X-Received: by 10.66.120.49 with SMTP id kz17mr5864067pab.71.1415295364154; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 09:36:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [107.17.57.61] ([64.129.13.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qh4sm6473959pbb.35.2014.11.06.09.36.00 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Nov 2014 09:36:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <545BB180.2030902@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 06:36:00 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
References: <6ACE138D-0969-4D8F-9A64-3D1FBB96885A@viagenie.ca> <830AC04C-6020-4E42-AAC2-A0D3AF5E3B02@isoc.org> <69F4F598-F6B7-419B-B494-17FE23B79107@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <69F4F598-F6B7-419B-B494-17FE23B79107@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/aX1bfQM37ZxHwUuiV-G-c0F6azc
Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, Olaf Kolkman <kolkman@isoc.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] making ARPA explicit (Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
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: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 17:36:07 -0000

On 06/11/2014 15:04, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Yes, .ARPA was left out and needs to be put in.

I'll be picky. .ARPA is one of the technical exceptions to the
policy issues and is therefore already included in the term "protocol
parameters registries." So if you want to mention it, it
should definitely be

IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries including the .ARPA domain.

Regards
   Brian

> On Nov 5, 2014, at 4:24 PM, Olaf Kolkman <kolkman@isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>>> Draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.txt
>>>
>>> Please send comments to the list.
>>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> I have two suggestions about .ARPA. Apologies for not bringing this up earlier and potentially overlooking previous discussion on list (there are some hints of similar thoughts on the list, but no concrete suggestions for inclusion).
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Identifying the activity.
>>
>> CONTEXT:
>>>>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
>>>>> affected.
>>
>>   IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries.
>>
>>
>>
>> OLD:
>>  IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries.
>>
>> NEW:
>>  IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries including the .ARPA domain.
>> ALTERNATIVE:
>>  IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries and the .ARPA domain.
>>
>> MOTIVATION:
>> Make explicit that the .ARPA domain is an integral part of the IETF side of the plan. The contracts mentions the protocol parameters separately from the .ARPA domain and this intends to avoid confusion upstream. I tend to think of .ARPA domain as being a protocol parameter registry with an alternative publication mechanism, hence the ‘including’ but ‘and’ may be more clear.
>>
>>
>> The same modification can be made other parts of the document. I leave that trade-off to the editors.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. .ARPA as an interdependency.
>>
>> I am less sure about this suggestion than the above.
>>
>> Context:
>>>>> A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your
>>>>> IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer
>>>>> communities
>>
>> A new bullet point that communicates that we rely on the names side of the IANA house for delegation to the parameter operator and that the number communities rely on further delegation (in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa) could be added?
>>
>>
>> In addition 
>>
>> Context:
>>  To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to transition
>>   to another operator, the IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental
>>   agreement that-
>>
>> you may want to add:
>>
>> 3. requires the redelegation of the .ARPA domain to the subsequent operators.
>>
>>
>>
>> —Olaf
>>
>> — — — — — — — — — — 
>> Olaf Kolkman
>> (on personal title)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email