Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 11 February 2015 10:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 65E901A87BF for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:16:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
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 V-sWa6IYOe46 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:15:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21C4B1A87B1 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:15:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [101.100.166.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E1BDA8A031 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:15:55 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:15:49 +0800
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20150211101548.GB6306@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <2CC076A5-50D5-4A89-AA5B-F0FF7346CE82@vigilsec.com> <20150211100821.4475.qmail@ary.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150211100821.4475.qmail@ary.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/sVkf7fGBBzrCobmToeHqfUOPLvI>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:16:00 -0000

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:08:21AM -0000, John Levine wrote:
> The parameter registry data are clearly important, but I don't see why
> we need to place a great emphasis on the IANA name.  I understand its
> historical and sentimental importance, but not its practical
> importance.

I agree with what you're saying from the POV of the IETF, but the RIRs
seem to think that the name "IANA" is important to them.  So, I see no
problem in putting it in the Trust, even though I don't think it will
ever do us any good for all the reasons you stated.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com