Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 27 May 2015 18:30 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 569F61A005F for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 2miIthDY3elB for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4D51A1A96 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E387E9A404F; Wed, 27 May 2015 14:29:52 -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 A-N6PC21Haf2; Wed, 27 May 2015 14:28:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [5.5.33.36] (vpn.snozzages.com [204.42.252.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932579A403D; Wed, 27 May 2015 14:29:21 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-124--822388816
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <55660739.2010009@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 14:29:04 -0400
Message-Id: <9A34E0AD-3B11-4CCD-BEF0-70E1806423A3@vigilsec.com>
References: <D15A3C14-F268-4CF1-B942-BAE57B281C58@cooperw.in> <556D3AAA-1655-4785-9395-8F6CD0B73E44@vigilsec.com> <55660739.2010009@cisco.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/bvHT9hqysHSbjkwwqrXoE6fC1J0>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
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: Wed, 27 May 2015 18:30:05 -0000

Eliot:

> I agree with all that you write, modulo one point:
> 
> On 5/27/15 7:33 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> The plan calls for two expectations to be met as part of the transition.  Those expectations are the following:
>> 
>>    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 intent is to add language to the SLA to fulfill both of these expectations.
>> 
>> The IETF is ready to sign the updated SLA now, but we have been told that ICANN cannot do so until they get explicit permission as part of implementing the transition.  So, from our side, the answer to the question from the ICG leadership is "zero".
> 
> We expect the CWG proposal to be updated.  I presume that the IAB and perhaps this group may wish to comment on the revised proposal, and specifically how the PTI relates to us, if at all.  If there is no impact, then of course, there will be no additional time required.

Yes, but we can only answer in the context of our current proposal.  If we need to change our proposal in the future to align with the CWG proposal, then we can reassess the timeline.

>> However, we also do not believe that we have accomplished a transition until that updated SLA is signed.  We have no way to know when ICANN will get the needed permission.  So, from that perspective, the answer to the question from the ICG leadership is "we do not know".

Thanks,
  Russ