Re: [Ianaplan] IANAPLAN WG approval and edits

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Fri, 05 September 2014 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2251A06B8; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 06:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uRBUAXGTQ86L; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 06:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00CD31A06B4; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 06:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p9so2793735lbv.28 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 06:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=T9zglykTBunJNUhiCiIcxiCDNbGLgMkRZNjozJaOKMg=; b=scFty0T9UvHvR5KJhZBizVvKH2dwa2NnrU1pEp93pskyqxHv8NPuCU3YmGyT8UOMND 0H7FoVYYzDgea1WpT3uIfmc2Mx09sDM6LPaMZWKwnbrWOl0RfG1MTQRz8VO/HgGRJoM/ Ulv2hdXy5eLI7N9x31pvzsVgR0JL2BOjwziqefBdqsdBmbeHhCIUuZzQXoMXdDaqKyr3 u5ZDlYO2GfW6JiFuvqUvOQMgDuJhU9VUu0DkeGPe02QdfWlN54L+Y7Wqk1QDGaQCEnJh rbAFqp5o9xvH2Ed2xR81wZp/im3VzxqMubX+dF7+bS0e0AF9sJ46tE24Q4j3urzqwO4G cuSA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id mq4mr3159061lbb.103.1409923669365; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 06:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 06:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:27:49 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
To: Jari Arkko <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0122aece791afd0502516f53"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 05:16:47 -0700
Cc: "" <>, " Strategy" <>, The IESG <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] IANAPLAN WG approval and edits
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 13:27:58 -0000

On Friday, September 5, 2014, Jari Arkko <> wrote:

> Last night, the IESG approved the IANAPLAN WG and its charter (with
> edits). Those edits are here, the full charter below, and the formal
> announcement for this will be sent later.
> Jari
> ----
> Background
> ==========
> Registries of parameter values for use in IETF protocols are stored
> and maintainted for the IETF by the Internet Assigned Numbers
> Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations"
> section in many RFCs.
> For a number of years, this IANA function has been provided by the
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).  The
> IETF's relationship with IANA was formalized through a Memorandum of
> Understanding between the IETF and ICANN codified in 2000 with the
> publication of RFC 2860.  Over time, processes and role definitions
> have evolved, and have been documented in supplemental agreements.
> ICANN has had a contract with the US Department of Commerce (DoC) to
> provide the IANA function, undertaken through the National
> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).  In March of
> 2014, NTIA announced its intention to transition out of its current
> role, meaning that NTIA would not need to renew its contract with
> ICANN when that contract expires 30 September 2015.  NTIA requested a
> transition proposal be prepared to outline the necessary
> arrangements. In the case of the elements of the IANA function
> concerning the IETF protocol registries, it is likely that the
> existing well-documented practices will continue and no or little new
> activity will be required.
> Tasks
> =====
> The IANAPLAN working group is chartered to produce an IETF consensus
> document that describes the expected interaction between the IETF and
> the operator of IETF protocol parameters registries.
> The system in place today for oversight of the IETF protocol
> registries component of the IANA function works well. As a result,
> minimal change in the oversight of the IETF protocol parameters
> registries is preferred in all cases and no change is preferred when
> possible. The working group will address the implications of moving
> the NTIA out of its current role with respect to IANA on the IETF
> protocol parameters registry function in a way that focuses on
> continuation of the current arrangements.  The working group will
> assume the following documents continue to be in effect:
> - RFC 2850
> - RFC 3777 and its updates
> - RFC 2860
> - RFC 6220
>    (
> - ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreements
>    (updated yearly since 2007, the 2014 version is available at
>    2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf)
> This working group is chartered solely with respect to the planning
> needed for the transition, and is not meant to cover other topics
> related to IANA. Possible improvements outside that scope will be set
> aside for future consideration. However, the mechanisms required to
> address the removal of the overarching NTIA contract may require
> additional documentation or agreements. The WG will identify, but
> not create, such required agreements.
> Should proposals made by other communities regarding the
> transition of other IANA functions affect the IETF protocol parameter
> registries or the IETF, the WG may also review and comment on them.
> Fully documenting the interaction between the IETF and the operator
> of IETF protocol parameters registries may require detailed terms of
> agreements or other details of procedures that are normally delegated
> to and handled by the IAB or IAOC. The working group will not attempt
> to produce or discuss documentation for these details, but will
> request the IAB or IAOC to provide them separately.
> The WG shall seek the expertise of the IAB IANA Evolution Program to
> formulate its output. It is expected that members of the IAB IANA
> Strategy Program will actively participate in the WG.

Will there be two different IAB IANA programs? The previous version had
"Strategy" in both places.


> Milestones
> Jan 2015         complete protocol parameters registries document
> May 2015         review of other transition proposals, if needed
> Sep 2015         close