Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 27 May 2015 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 C6BEC1A897B for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 i6sfSLwYLVIq for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E88B1A8969 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03EDA9A405A; Wed, 27 May 2015 14:59:40 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fmjs29XOa42p; Wed, 27 May 2015 14:58:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [5.5.33.36] (vpn.snozzages.com [204.42.252.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B019A404B; Wed, 27 May 2015 14:59:18 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <5F8F0771-C77B-4D90-811B-501A4EC79268@istaff.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 14:59:05 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <893FE3E3-A2DD-40D8-B39F-1EB24DFE1806@vigilsec.com>
References: <D15A3C14-F268-4CF1-B942-BAE57B281C58@cooperw.in> <556D3AAA-1655-4785-9395-8F6CD0B73E44@vigilsec.com> <5F8F0771-C77B-4D90-811B-501A4EC79268@istaff.org>
To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/vfStk3peXG-Vq7N565GJV3guYOY>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry
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, 27 May 2015 18:59:51 -0000

John:

> On May 27, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> However, we also do not believe that we have accomplished a transition until that updated SLA is signed.  We have no way to know when ICANN will get the needed permission.  So, from that perspective, the answer to the question from the ICG leadership is "we do not know”.
> 
> It would probably be best to provide an answer with sufficient context to allow NTIA 
> (as the eventual receipt of the information) with the ability to interpolate based on its
> own knowledge.   For example -
> 
> “In order to be ready for the stewardship transition, the IETF requires an updated SLA
> with ICANN which addresses these two issues.  An updated SLA has been drafted and
> the protocol parameter community can be ready for stewardship transition immediately
> after its has been executed with ICANN.   At this time, we do not have any information
> regarding when ICANN will be able to enter into the updated SLA.”

I was trying to start the conversation on this list ...

I agree with your proposed formulation.  

Russ