Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Jefsey,

Perhaps because we have corresponded more over the years, unlike
Jari, I understood your comments and the note excerpted below
confirmed my understanding.  Part of that understanding is that
the vast majority of your text and comments below are about your
vision for computer-enabled networking going forward and where
you think the IETF and other bodies fit in that model.  While
the I-D does contain some description of parts of how the IETF
works and, in particular, how it relates to the IANA function,
it doesn't make normative changes to IETF  (or IAB, ISOC, etc.)
relationships to the present or future Internet beyond the very
narrow issues of IANA relationships and oversight.  No matter
what you might read into what is said, for it to do so would be
out of scope for the WG and would represent changes to which
some of us would object strenuously, especially if those changes
were hidden in discussions of NTIA-IANA relationships and the
conditions and implications of changes in them.

Details below.

--On Friday, December 19, 2014 12:04 +0100 JFC Morfin
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
> It is difficult to understand this sentence since the "this"
> is not explained as being that from now on, the IETF will
> still be working for the future internet ,in its own way and
> for its own mission but will not be exclusive or responsible
> for it any more.

The document changes nothing in that area, including any notions
of exclusivity and/or responsibility.   I don't know whether we
would agree about how "exclusive or responsible" things are
intended or desired to be today (or how they are practiced), but
I am quite certain that this document changes nothing in those
areas.

> This responsibility is here understood as per RFC 3935: "when
> the IETF takes ownership of a protocol or function, it accepts
> the responsibility for all aspects of the protocol, even
> though some aspects may rarely or never be seen on the
> Internet.  Conversely, when the IETF is not responsible for a
> protocol or function, it does not attempt to exert control
> over it, even though it may at times touch or affect the
> Internet."

That statement has little or nothing to do with the IANA
function, the IETF-IANA relationship, or IANA oversight.  The
present draft does not change anything about it, even to
reaffirm it.

> The IAB still has to commit in this document. However,
> eventually ISOC will be the one having to decide, since the
> I_D means that ISOC would not own the internet anymore (in the
> RFC 3935 meaning hereinabove).

I do not believe that any of IETF, the IAB, or ISOC have claimed
at any time to "own the Internet".   Even if they had, there is
nothing in this document that would change or ratify that
status.   Because the document changes nothing in those areas,
your subsequent assertions about 'the end of the "status quo"
strategy' and 'affirmation' are just simply not relevant.

>...
> Now, as a non-IETF
> technically competing WG, I need to have the practicalities of
> this new situation explained and how IETF stakeholders intend
> to adapt to the MYCANN/CORPCANN/GOVCANN middlewares and the
> multitechnology environment that we will face and build
> together.
> 
> We need to know if the IAB/IETF, or someone else they would
> accept, intends to launch a normative multistakeholder
>...

Whether you "need" those things or not, and whether you can
demand that the IETF or IAB respond to those needs, they simply
have nothing to do with the substantive subject matter of this
document or the scope of the WG.

best regards,
    john