Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for your comments.  Please see below.

On 10/29/14, 3:01 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> This is good enough, so please push it forwards and thanks to
> the editors.
>
> I have 3 minor comments:
>
> (1) On p11 I see this:
>    To address issues raised by the IETF community relating to
>    intellectual property rights, the IAOC is asked to engage the
>    appropriate parties, both inside and outside the IETF, to make clear
>    that data in the protocol parameters registries is in the public
>    domain.
>
> I'm not sure if "public domain" is the right legal/copyright term
> here. I guess ask a lawyer at some stage, but the intent is correct
> and, other than possibly not being in lawyerly language, clear

We have spoken to a lawyer ;-)  Our intent is specific here.

>
> (2) Also on p11:
>    To address a desire by the IETF community to have mechanisms that
>    allow for additional dispute resolution between the IETF and the
>    current IANA protocol registries operator, the IAOC is asked to
>    conclude a supplemental agreement regarding jurisdiction and any
>    necessary dispute resolution mechanisms that are mutually acceptable
>    to the parties.
>
> I have no such desire and I find the last clauses vague to the point
> of meaninglessness. It's not clear to me if the WG do or do not have
> that desire (the chairs will call that) nor whether that'd survive
> IETF LC even if the WG have that opinion. I think deleting this
> paragraph would be better, but am fine that rough consensus to keep
> it or not is determined by the WG chairs and IETF LC.

For the chairs to comment.
>
> (3) A pure nit: p16 says:
>    The IESG established the IANAPLAN working group to develop this
>    response.
>
> That is correct, but followed external review allowing any IETF
> participant to comment on WG formation, as usual. And the charter
> of the WG also says:
>
>   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.
>
> I think calling out that the charter was essentially subject to IETF
> review and that the charter says the above would both be good to do.
> I agree that that's redundant, but think it could be worth it in this
> case.

Indeed.  Taken with Brian's comments, I would add that an informational
description of the process that is taking place now (and that it
conforms to our normal way of working) should be included in the draft.

Eliot