Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 02 September 2014 08:20 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 EAFD81A011B for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 01:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] 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 6AdEuhBAU9mx for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 01:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C413B1A0114 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 01:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329C8BEFD; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:20:00 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tarJj1gLDiyp; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:19:58 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.9] (unknown [86.42.23.36]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A9039BEF1; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:19:58 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <54057DAE.9030505@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 09:19:58 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rhill@hill-a.ch, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNOEGHCKAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
In-Reply-To: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNOEGHCKAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/rmk-Jl8IZGocM9cgDNnZ_e7RHow
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
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, 02 Sep 2014 08:20:08 -0000


On 02/09/14 09:13, Richard Hill wrote:
> I believe in planning to prevent worst-case outcomes.

But your mail utterly ignored the existing protections built
around the protocol parameters, to the extent (IMO at least)
that you moved from considering a possible worst-case outcome
to argumentatively using a nonsensical fictional outcome for
I don't know what purpose.

> But maybe my reality is different from yours.

I guess so. Ignoring the current setup for the IANA functions
as you did does seem like an alternate universe;-)

S.


> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Stephen
>> Farrell
>> Sent: mardi, 2. septembre 2014 10:11
>> To: rhill@hill-a.ch; Brian E Carpenter
>> Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/09/14 08:59, Richard Hill wrote:
>>> If they are not changed, then, in my view, ICANN will have no choice
>>> but to consider that it has ultimate authority over the global
>>> Internet's systems of unique identifiers, which of course includes
>>> the protocol parameters.
>>
>> I can't think of a universe in which is that a helpful statement.
>>
>> The "will have no choice but to consider" phrasing seems very
>> like trolling.
>>
>> And the supposed problematic outcome isn't worth bothering with
>> anyway. As has been stated numerous times, if ICANN every acted
>> silly with the protocol parameters, they'd end up out of that
>> business in 6 months and would probably suffer other collateral
>> damage as a result. So they just won't mess about is my conclusion
>> regardless of this transition. (And I don't believe there's any
>> indication they'd want to mess about with the protocol parameters
>> anyway - they do a fine job with good folks.)
>>
>> Richard - wouldn't it be better to stick to a more reality
>> based discussion?
>>
>> S.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>