IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 03 November 2014 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9557F1A8782 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 14:43:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a4iXRaZ77YGm for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 14:43:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x231.google.com (mail-pd0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30CD91A878C for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 14:43:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id v10so12248499pde.22 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:43:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vrrryiewCE0xUfjZuUIMs/oqf3aH4fT6TwgiLU5B3O8=; b=uHQPR0ekXIpOJZL2HaT4ACmqueClIcYIaoubmy59UTIOmA/gFi1vdmeIBXEXPx6Wo8 7G9NjnVjjLB1btiz+BdDov13z22WeqB8hmwcsVSZfAXWXS/afQx+0C5/+jOC4PwOISgg mdV1YbqHliZBqcwklJIpy4b3aOgqrKetjz9LGR4qkXHCc6VMibetvRNT2i2MPgA0iIJX BTF+0O5Ue4E8Hg+Bz4Ohst3n/YvSKgreuoAZeo+hzI/hzNzBJopP3GjSSZoW5t8aAhEb sR2d/EyYZ3LVuBINSUk9sFIuez/6oJvKH9s+oeg2C9CvfA/khNHWTPyTCei18mTOWevW 3PVw==
X-Received: by 10.66.141.165 with SMTP id rp5mr5971184pab.121.1415054608740; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:43:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [130.216.38.108] (sc-cs-567-laptop.cs.auckland.ac.nz. [130.216.38.108]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id va2sm18251783pac.15.2014.11.03.14.43.26 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5458050D.8040809@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 11:43:25 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
References: <20141103183007.GP27751@mx1.yitter.info> <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNEENBCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <20141103212831.GF28565@mx1.yitter.info> <5457FBA7.6050908@cisco.com> <20141103222618.GB28757@mx1.yitter.info>
In-Reply-To: <20141103222618.GB28757@mx1.yitter.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/lTAcDDRtdSEqoYqjf_UviLXk1t8
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 22:43:32 -0000

On 04/11/2014 11:26, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 02:03:19PM -0800, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> How does that sound to you in principle?
> 
> My objection to moving the relevant bits to the IETF Trust has never
> been one of principle.  It's been one of practicality: I don't see any
> incentive whatsoever for ICANN to give up that property without
> getting something in return, and I can't think of anything I want to
> give up more than iana.org in case there's more than one operator.

Exactly. An IANA by any other name would smell as sweet. If I have to
change a few bookmarks to registry.ietf.org, I really don't care very
much; that would be the least of my worries if there was a break-up.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email