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

[JFC Morfin <[e-mail]>]

At 22:19 08/11/2014, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>My question here, when we say .ARPA domain, do we mean the whole
>sub-tree? Do we need to mention that here explicitly?

Why do you want to change anything? All this is 
already agreed and signed by ARPA, NTIA, ICANN and IAB.

This is RFC 52.

.arpa is the IETF names, numbers, protocols and parameters zone.

The NTIA considers its management by the IAB in 
cooperation with the IANA operator (subject to 
the RFC 2860 Section 4.3 IETF ultimate decision) as a IANA function.

At 01:36 09/11/2014, manning bill wrote:
>For me, the more fundamental problem is:  a) how 
>to tell when an operator of one of these 
>functions has lost it,  and  b) how to 
>neutralize the impact of a rogue operator.

The ICANN accountability issue is addressed by 
BCP 52 (and most of the ICANN accountability 
issue, since the "raison d'être" of ICANN are the 
IANA operations. ICANN is accountable to the IETF 
and therefore subject to the RFC 2026 section 
4.2.3 appeal procedure with ISOC as ultimate referent).

My suggestions:
- is that the IAB complies with its RFC 3271, Section 5, obligations.
- was that the IETF completes the IEN 48 Internet 
project in extending the .arpa zone to the 
d.ocumentation of every digital network 
technology names, numbers, protocols and 
parameters. Because it would be simpler for all.

However, since this does not look that simple to 
this WG, thiis evening IUWG meeting has agreed that:
- I will introduce an I_D to that end at the end of the cut-off period
- updated the IUWG Draft to document how the IUWG 
will proceed to document a global networked 
solution seamlessly addressing the general issue 
of which the IGC is a particular case. 
http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.02.pdf

This way the IUse situation will not be blocked 
anymore by the absurd "iana.org" issue.

jfc




>My suggestion would be that at the same time we leave the heading the
>the main activity as simply "protocol  registries", which is
>consistent with the high-level division of IANA functions.
>
>Andrei
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ianaplan mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan