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

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

Jefsey,

Sorry to be blunt, but it's been a long day....

Actually, I HAVE read your draft.  The thing is, it is not, in any way, 
shape, manner, or form, a response to the ICG RFP.  As someone who 
spends most of may day job, writing proposals, my basic reaction is to 
ignore a document that is unresponsive to the RFP.

Beyond that, as a matter of general "style" - and a problem I continue 
to have with the WG draft - is that documents that rely heavily on cross 
references to other documents are incredibly difficult to follow.

Miles Fidelman

Jefsey wrote:
> 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 
> <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 iana.org <http://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 iana.org 
>> <http://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" <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     David Conrad wrote:
>>
>>         Miles,
>>
>>         On Nov 6, 2014, at 6:19 AM, Miles Fidelman
>>         <[e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[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 IANA.ORG
>>         <http://IANA.ORG> domain?
>>
>>
>>
>>     Kind of depends on the degree to which various developers depend
>>     on the various registries published under iana.org
>>     <http://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 iana.org
>>     <http://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
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan 
>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra