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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew and thanks for your review.  Responses in line.

>
> p 3:
>
>     containing the parameter values and a pointer to
>    documentation of the associated semantic intent.
>
> This is slightly problematic, because there are registry entries for
> things that explicitly do _not_ have semantic intent.  For instance,
> the private-use ranges in many protocols are available in the
> registry, but their purpose ie explicitly to have no semantics. I'd
> suggest "and a pointer to associated documentation".  I don't feel
> strongly about this comment; it just seems cleaner.

I propose to accept this change, barring any objections.  I am, however,
growing concerned that someone from the outside not actually get a good
view as to what a protocol parameter really is with our current text.  I
don't want an RFP response to turn into a tutorial, but perhaps we need
one more clear sentence to really make the point.

>
> Also p 3:
>  
>    The IANA protocol parameters registries operator maintains the
>    protocol parameters registries for the IETF in accordance with all
>    relevant IETF policies, in accordance with the Memorandum of
>    Understanding[RFC2860] and associated supplemental agreements that
>    include service level agreements (SLAs) established between the IETF
>    and ICANN[MOUSUP].
>
> This is a nit, but "in accordance" there starts to show up a lot.  How
> about, "for the IETF in conformance with all relevant…"?

I propose to accept this change, barring any substantial objection, as
it improves readibility.

>
> p 6:
>
>    there is sufficient interest, the Internet Engineering Steering Group
>    may choose to create a working group or an Area Director may choose
>    to sponsor the draft.
>
> I think insert a sentence, "Alternatively, the proposal may be in an
> area of work already chartered as an existing working group, and the
> working group may choose to take up the proposal."  I think someone
> (Suzanne?) already suggested something along these lines.

I think from a flow standpoint we would want to invert that, but the
point is well taken.  What I propose is the following:

        ... Anyone may submit such a
        proposal.  If there is sufficient interest, a working
        group whose scope includes the proposed work may choose to
        adopt it, the Internet Engineering Steering Group may
        choose to create a working group, or an Area Director may
        choose to sponsor the draft.  In any case, anyone may
        comment on the proposal as it progresses.
>
> p 8:
>
>    sent to the Internet Society Board of Trustees for confirmation.  In
>    general, members serve for two years.  The IAB selects its own
>    chair.
>
> This makes it sound like most IAB members serve for only two years.
> How about, "In general, members are appointed for terms of two years;
> they may be reappointed.  The IAB selects…"

I propose to accept this change because it makes the text more clear.

>
> p 10:
>
>    No major changes are required, however, the IETF community has
>    expressed a desire for several points to be addressed by supplemental
>    agreements to the IETF-ICANN MoU, prior to a transition to post-NTIA
>    regime.  Over the years since the creation of ICANN, the IETF, ICANN,
>    and IAB have together created a system of agreements, policies, and
>    oversight mechanisms that covers what is needed.
>
> This ¶ is hard for me to understand.  The propositions I read here
> are, 1. No major changes; 2. Some additional points are needed in
> supplemental agreements; 3. We have a system of agreements that covers
> what's needed.  This seems incoherent.  (1) restricts the scope of (2)
> but (3) seems contradictory to (2).
>
> I agree with Alissa, moreover, that specifying exactly how the IAOC
> has to implement the desire of the WG is going a little too far.  I'm
> not even sure that IETF needs the supplemental agreement for the items
> 1 and 2 at the bottom of the page to be in effect.  In addition I
> wonder whether (2) is simply redundant to (1).  I am aware that I'm
> probably in the rough on this.  I also remain extremely dubious of the
> value of the "jurisdiction" stuff, and am not in favour of it.

This issue remains open, and I propose to address it separately.

Thanks again for your comments,

Eliot