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

Stephen Farrell <> Wed, 11 January 2017 02:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A906C129893 for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:49:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h18lCxP7Sp0z for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:49:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58DC2126FDC for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:49:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7134BE38; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 02:49:30 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gFxB-OhKS3Ib; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 02:49:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05422BE2F; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 02:49:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1484102969; bh=GRu3aycm1H4SGUdPNtuMTuseTyBvA1KA5v11uuanH+4=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Tfhtg7yIf7+Od3H4Zv44y6liq1mUCnYNeWBcECgJuvnmzHbBrPWpe8WRifE8i/xhc mwEucGCbMXBjZx9Ybmvibu9v8Yk+wde4TjDybzII5nY6qPznSpC+Mu6cGweR5RP1yE cwtYkoEitzVzma0/Bno50KHNva8pthQOnAsZireU=
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-19.txt
To: Andrew Sullivan <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 02:49:28 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms010503040606040607070507"
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 02:49:36 -0000


On 11/01/17 02:34, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 01:57:51AM +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> I'm not saying you're wrong, but I thought a part of the reason
>> that we (IETF/IETF trust) took on the so-called "ipr" was because
>> we were best placed in terms of having the most healthily sceptical
>> attitude to the (lack of) value supposedly-inherent in that "ipr"?
> There may be different reasons around the community why different
> people thought it was ok for the Trust to end up holding this.
> Perhaps a public mailing list is not the ideal place for me to vent^W
> express my feelings about trademarks on "IANA" or related logos.
> Nevertheless,
>> is that I don't care about the IETF trust issues and conclude that
>> reasonable grammar ought win in this case.
> whether you care about IETF Trust issues makes no difference, 

It does make a difference to me. I don't care if it makes no
difference to you/the IETF trust. (I mean that respectfully.)

> because
> the IETF Trustees, and only the IETF Trustees, are indivudually on the
> hook for making sure their fiduciary duty with respect to the Trust
> property is fulfilled.  Therefore, I believe the Trust will insist
> that the trademark on IANA be handled according to the agreements the
> Trust has with various parties (including the IETF, note).

I also don't care about that. I respect that folks serving on
the IETF trust are doing what seems correct, but nonetheless
when correct fiduciary attitudes are just silly, I'll happily
call out and then ignore the silliness.

To be clear though, I very much do care if someone claims that
we have new rules related to IANA meaning that I-Ds have to use
language approved by the IETF trust. At that point, I do object
to the trust's actions.

But I assume you are not saying that the IETF trust's recently
inherited so-called "ipr" wins out over clear language in
I-Ds, so I'm sure it's all ok. If in fact you do think that
the so-called "ipr" infringes on I-D authors' freedom to
choose descriptive language then I really would like you to
say that clearly and to point at the IETF-consensus RFC that
specifies exactly which restrictions you claim apply.

> Full disclosure: until March or the IAB removes me (whichever comes
> first), I'm IAB chair, which means I'm on the IAOC, which means I'm a
> Trustee.  I'm offering my personal opinion, but it is informed by what
> I understood IETF Trust counsel advised.  Because of a bad decision
> when I was younger, I am not a lawyer, and this opinion is worth what
> you paid for it :)

I'll take my -0$ back then please:-)

Again, no disrespect to you or other trustees intended, but we
really ought not treat inherited silliness too nicely. And we
also ought not make a mountain out of this so-called "ipr"


> Best regards,
> A