Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

[Jefsey <[e-mail]>]

Seun, Richard, Miles, John,
This WG calls for a few "iana.cool" brains. If you do not want to 
read my draft (1) please at least read the IAB/ICANN/NTIA RFC 3172 
(BCP 52) https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3172.txt. In particular Section 5.
Cheers.
jfc

(1) http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.01.pdf
      IMHO this is the one which will prevail as it is not NTIA, nor 
SCO, nor EU, nor ICANN, nor ITU, nor NETmundial, etc. oriented. Just 
interested in intelligent internet use capability.


At 23:06 07/11/2014, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>Miles, it think you are referencing that url as if the operating 
>systems services are syncing off the <http://iana.org>iana.org site.
>If that domain changes today, it does not take anything other than a 
>update to reflect the new reference url does it?
>What would be disastrous is if there happens to be 2 authoritative 
>parameter source with different entries; as an example http 
>referenced as port 80 and as another port on the other site.
>
>How to avoid that is not just by locking up the name 
><http://iana.org>iana.org but by locking up to a single source of authority.
>
>Cheers!
>
>sent from Google nexus 4
>kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>On 7 Nov 2014 22:42, "Miles Fidelman" 
><<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]> wrote:
>David Conrad wrote:
>Miles,
>
>On Nov 6, 2014, at 6:19 AM, Miles Fidelman 
><<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]> wrote:
>More specifically, I'm concerned with avoiding any confusion or 
>operational disruption in the event of future conflicts among the 
>parties involved in oversight, management, and/or performance of the 
>IANA functions - particularly in the case where a transition of 
>contractor might occur on less then friendly terms.
>
>Under such situations, it seems at least possible, if not likely, 
>that litigation might ensue and/or that parties might operate 
>competing registries - causing operational confusion at a minimum, 
>and possibly more serious disruptions to smooth operation of the net.
>
>We're talking about the protocol parameter registries, right?
>
>I'm honestly curious: could you describe the "serious disruptions to 
>smooth operation of the net" or "operational confusion" that would 
>occur in the event of future conflicts relating to the IANA 
>trademark and/or <http://IANA.ORG>IANA.ORG domain?
>
>
>
>Kind of depends on the degree to which various developers depend on 
>the various registries published under <http://iana.org>iana.org, 
>and perhaps on the degree to which anybody relies on automatic 
>download of registry contents.
>
>For example, the /etc/services file in Debian includes this statement:
>#Updated from 
><http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers>http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
>
>I expect other operating systems do similar things.  A lot of 
>systems could break, rather precipitously, if 
><http://iana.org>iana.org went offline, or the file were moved 
>somewhere else, or the file were corrupted - particularly if it 
>happened just before a major release cycle.
>
>To me, that would be a "serious disruption" or at the very least 
>"operational confusion"
>
>
>Miles Fidelman
>
>--
>In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ianaplan mailing list
><mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ianaplan mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan