Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot,
At 03:01 02-09-2014, Eliot Lear wrote:
>Ok.  I'm opening an issue on the text to track this.  Incidentally, 
>I'm right now using GITHUB for issue tracking (see 
>https://github.com/elear/IANA-Transition/issues/).  If ianaplan gets 
>chartered the chairs may use those issues or not, depending (among 
>other things) whether the WG uses the draft ;-)  I will also accept 
>pull requests so long as it's clear that this group finds the text 
>acceptable, or it's editorial in nature.

I wondered whether the future working group would adopt the draft. 
:-)  I'll wait as it might not be useful to debate about the issues 
immediately.

>Well, but that was just the start of my list.  Steve Crocker is the 
>chair of the board of ICANN, and he's also the author of RFC 1 
>(among many others), a former security AD, and an occasional contributor.

I am aware of the above.  However, my argument was based on facts 
whereas the above is about the background of one person.  I'll wait 
to see your list. :-)

>>The IETF process is discussed in RFC 2026.  The text would require 
>>any changes to be done through that process.
>
>Hang on.  I'm lost again.  What I thought I was responding to was this:
>
>>
>>
>>   "Any modifications to the protocol parameter registry function
>>
>>    should be made using the IETF process"

Yes.

>What are we materially disagreeing on in the draft?

I'd say that it is more of a matter of wording for a formal answer 
which will be scrutinized by the world.  I think that you have some 
good text on Page 12 (second paragraph from the bottom).  If it is 
used as the starting point for some of the responses you have most of 
what you need.

By the way, this is a -00 draft.  It may be easier if you defer this 
for now as other persons may wish to review the draft and suggest changes.

>Ok.  I personally disagree, but I will open an issue on this as well.

Thanks.

>Yes.  However, it's important for all to recognize that should we 
>create new registries, we may ask others to manage them, and those 
>others may or may not be those who manage existing registries.  Does 
>that recognition have to happen in our response?  I've opened an issue.

I am not disagreeing with asking others to manage some registries in 
future.  My quick thought in reply to the question would be to leave 
it to RFC 6220.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy