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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 05 November 2014 01:03 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 202B31A1AA6 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:03:06 -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 v2a3HpZXRg5C for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:03:04 -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 431531A1AA3 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:03:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [50.189.173.0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B0A98A031 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 01:03:00 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 20:02:58 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20141105010258.GB30186@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <6ACE138D-0969-4D8F-9A64-3D1FBB96885A@viagenie.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <6ACE138D-0969-4D8F-9A64-3D1FBB96885A@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/vORv0Bg4PJUVj9ut3XnXrxxwYGo
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] 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: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 01:03:06 -0000

Dear colleagues,

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:42:47AM -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote:

> Draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.txt
> 
> Please send comments to the list.

I have read this draft.  I have some comments apart from other remarks
I've made in this thread.  I'll use the page numbers because the
section numbers are not granular enough here.  Most of these are
pretty trivial.

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.

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…"?

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.

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…"

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.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com