Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF

Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Wed, 13 May 2015 10:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mueller@syr.edu>
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 5CBA21B2A6A for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2015 03:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Grkw8tIQJM2N for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2015 03:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.syr.edu (smtp2.syr.edu [128.230.18.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37DA41B2A53 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 May 2015 03:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EX13-MBX-03.ad.syr.edu (ex13-mbx-03.ad.syr.edu [128.230.108.133]) by smtp2.syr.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t4DAC3fv000398 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 May 2015 06:12:04 -0400
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) by EX13-MBX-03.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.133) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Wed, 13 May 2015 06:11:45 -0400
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) by EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Wed, 13 May 2015 06:11:26 -0400
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
To: Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF
Thread-Index: AQHQjBpMEY3mz9BPA0WCyomEcYFu4J13fEsAgACeGQCAAGDXAIAAKaWAgADk6cCAAFmxAP//xysQ
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 10:11:25 +0000
Message-ID: <91a13858d1f3440dbec16f9c4f1f6124@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <5550F809.80200@cisco.com> <55511064.2000300@gmail.com> <CAOW+2dvBb4n4W=q7NoO_V1X+JoqvO1TWYBqPAEseY9T7vybj9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFn1SEkBSfk5H5ZjOqfiyaxPak_62cNcRR-SDFH2JJ2HxQumA@mail.gmail.com> <6AAF802C-31C2-4D83-A6BE-49E794D966FE@istaff.org> <418d692e98e94d2bafe1c232b5c39e90@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <CAKFn1SF-1LyQ6k4+moxJ4iKYCLnf9jOUbN5X3XwXPWyn74DkXA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKFn1SF-1LyQ6k4+moxJ4iKYCLnf9jOUbN5X3XwXPWyn74DkXA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [193.0.24.165]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.14.151, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-05-13_03:2015-05-13,2015-05-13,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1505130075
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/dpIHxH69PbZqYU5vI1jUSg9RKQk>
Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF
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, 13 May 2015 10:12:09 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> 
> In general - I don't really appreciate the tone of this email from you, it read
> too much like you have to take this or bad things will happen.

Sorry for that. Not my intent. My goal was simply to acquaint you with the real political and temporal constraints operating on this process. In other words, we are well beyond the point where one can quibble with a structural model without proposing a specific, feasible alternative that can actually gain support.

> My personal view is that this PTI construct don't add anything else than
> complexity.

So you support a completely separate, independent IANA, then? 
  Is that simpler? (hint: ask who would own it and how would it be funded?)
  Is it an option that can gain consensus? 

> If the goal - clear and stated goal from the names side of things was to
> separate policy from operations that make sense, but call it something else
> then.

That is definitely one of the main goals. Another is to enable a severable contractual relationship, which is what protocols already has and numbers has proposed. I am sorry, but I don't understand what "call it something else" means. Call _what_ something else? What does calling it something else accomplish?