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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 04 November 2014 01:16 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 B96171A1B35 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 17:16:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 aevjeAUTpHZ3 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 17:16:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DF631A1AF4 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 17:16:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2453; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1415063767; x=1416273367; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=cRYtn0gOjfPmeRPCycDSpX4SuAlj9+OZwmkFGpMY/SU=; b=FnD6N+pWLL7lws6wlIHVdvbh9z9VsLKrvjMij8JjVW13ml3m466Q1WQ6 p+HDAz3rfoxHJU3N8pzOqledCUp2eeC7TlNaowGkYjtf8HgRhOrvq95ew u/TeitXqiKx805bFhWBLHt1ToSzv9/+TpdHpBKwng+vQjnUansVY1+Y7Y E=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 486
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArUEAOonWFStJssW/2dsb2JhbABchDqDBtJ7AoE4AQEBAQF9hAMBAQQjVQEQCxgJFgQHAgIJAwIBAgFFBgoDAQUCAQGIPbZHlQIBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARiQLhEBUAeCd4FUAQSLdog5gVKIAIExhkQ7iheECYI0gWUcL4EPgTwBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,310,1413244800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="234510552"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2014 01:16:05 +0000
Received: from [10.61.200.129] ([10.61.200.129]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sA41Fxav031895; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 01:16:00 GMT
Message-ID: <545828CE.9070502@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:15:58 -0800
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
References: <20141103183007.GP27751@mx1.yitter.info> <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNEENBCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <20141103212831.GF28565@mx1.yitter.info> <5457FBA7.6050908@cisco.com> <B47C6E4D-B43A-450B-8877-D77ABB481E0E@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <B47C6E4D-B43A-450B-8877-D77ABB481E0E@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gjunmihFcwAslg9pNQTC64NFtf2IFkHui"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/qelCH_pM9nKHpw2kYQgWJlwmJNM
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 01:16:08 -0000

On 11/3/14, 5:12 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Hi Eliot,
>
> On Nov 3, 2014, at 2:03 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>  I suggest that if
>> the IETF/IAB or IETF trust takes control of the name, it do so with the
>> understanding that it take responsibility for seeing that backward
>> compatibility continue for each customer (names, numbers, protocol
>> parameters, in particular) for so long as it is safe to do so.  If
>> someone else wants to take control of the name, they should make that
>> same promise.
> This is so close to the language that I suggested that it’s hard for me to tell the difference between what you’re suggesting and what I suggested. To state the above requirement concisely:
>
> "Whoever owns the marks and identifiers has responsibility for ensuring backwards compatibility in the event that IANA operations shift to different entit(ies).”
>
> The requirement is that the owner of the marks/identifiers has to enable a smooth transition of the operations — regardless of whether the marks owner is the same as the operator or different or if there are multiple operators. Because the current owner is ICANN, this requirement would fall on ICANN.
>
> I would be satisfied if we substitute the above requirement in place of the one currently in the draft about the transfer of marks and identifiers. Do I read your email correctly that you would be satisfied as well?

Very much so!!

Eliot