RE: I-D Action: draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-19.txt

"James Gannon" <> Wed, 11 January 2017 09:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53845129ABB for <>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:22:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TvBzYtKpx5as for <>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:22:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c01::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D5F4129AB5 for <>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:22:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i20so96974725wjn.2 for <>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:22:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:thread-index:content-language; bh=Nt0zvUoDpyvejObiZckScKhD62hW4hYDSa1UWMoT0nQ=; b=E6XWqLDFNeLLab930+kn7QDKqQHsBroXNvI6PTRH6/q/2C5VB1632h12W4tp1PF87/ 9hVkqGoaEoXz7WjIIN747RC+daV6ydXED5d6MtIoQSKK2zgez7M8VUwlWAOQB/yDB6OW b9UxIDGGCmtvHDIqchyYk4Ps+g+ud8PE54qJzkWEKjKJwikZq4RhcdZedJuPrgjLvlfl UmryefW+Xp6ei6bj+SnFe+ijsLrLXqsxQpMUczDnZFxQ1vd83bB3ZoKR9v9i0Bbl7gZk Ip9stDve+tQlvaH/8Hv1CO0uZDWjr2C81ZFOVwC4xsAzef6ii9MpiY+aU7IWNdL3wIb5 YEIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=Nt0zvUoDpyvejObiZckScKhD62hW4hYDSa1UWMoT0nQ=; b=sBi+UXcQgLCxDSCWNoN70NSHOZMKV53byxCMnbPTvOnoL9sd2uVbS6R53DfzobvXvU YuVdo//Ok7dShmYHTjsE0BeklwrGOivPrJs7CwLheEiwOSXfNo/Sfz+MeAw1Hj5UoKWO GA5qH060wV8RTaTfPNpKDUwcVhczSjaJZKtRp6aBrKnpeQ3cgpyNOPgOq1SvQjH904Lj 4l/uKUeCdeaETV+IXR4umyK4UsUP2HDYUzstEVYN3lSnoca3XfeucTFu1PyfdcnqdjUx gvf4ndiBSPq26E6Aaf4hXYepcvROrHVFEv+c1GYd5VnAndmTBAJL7Bgm+z2F3tjhWtMY DOCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXK6mCUaH5sN3QhxrDTobrF/44DqrhxC7gzVApRyFwtAF7vU8qpBaB/3cTIAnRWYiQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id ug1mr4245797wjc.68.1484126576100; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:22:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from office ([]) by with ESMTPSA id yo9sm7462735wjc.14.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:22:55 -0800 (PST)
From: James Gannon <>
To: 'Andrew Sullivan' <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-19.txt
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:22:50 -0000
Message-ID: <03cf01d26bec$4839ff20$d8adfd60$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQDYcAwwIcJTxlj1Nk8vCnNPRlXrMAISk8VCAlOGUdsB/HcwhwE4NTuxouohsiA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:22:59 -0000

I agree with Andrew here, it would be a pity to run into this just a few
months after assuming the IPR in trust on behalf of all 3 communities, and
having agreed to the stewardship that came along with that. It may be just
issues of grammar or legalese, but it has background and relationships with
the two other communities behind those words.


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-19.txt

Sorry about the top post, but there's an important correction to be made

_We_ do not own the IANA trademark.  The IETF Trust does.  Moreover, the
Trust has certain agreements with other organizations and those constrain
what the Trust may do. Finally, the Trust can't actually do exactly what it
wants with the trademark, because there are rules about how trademarks must
be handled in order to remain valid.  

The Trust agreed to take on the IANA ipr as part of the transition, as a
service to the Internet operational communities affected.  That doesn't mean
we get just to do whatever we would like.  

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 20:37, Brian E Carpenter <>
>> On 11/01/2017 09:19, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 08:44:49AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> Sorry, but I find the replacement of "IANA" by "IANA Services" 
>>> throughout the draft to be both ugly and plain wrong.
>> Well, we need something other than "IANA", because the IETF is but 
>> one user of that mark, and the license that the IETF Trust gave to 
>> PTI does not permit them to refer to themselves as "IANA".
> I don't care what they call themselves. *WE* are writing this 
> document, we own the IANA trademark, and we can do exactly what we want
with it.
>> Would "IANA Services Operator" do?
> It is clumsy and pointless, but at least it's grammatical.
>>> But it doesn't matter: this document is about what IANA does.
>> I think that's not quite correct.  It's about what the IANA Services 
>> Operator for the protocol parameters registries (and other registries 
>> for which the IETF is policy authority) does.
> The distinction escapes me. Anyway, as Bob Hinden suggested, this can 
> all be taken care by a simple sentence at the beginning.
>    Brian