Re: last call discussion status on draft-iab-2870bis

manning bill <bmanning@isi.edu> Thu, 05 March 2015 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <bmanning@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABAC01A1C04; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:47:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 GuMihoo0EWVF; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:47:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 675F21A1A3C; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:47:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.32.4.206] ([198.32.4.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t25HkPuC007836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:46:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: last call discussion status on draft-iab-2870bis
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: manning bill <bmanning@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <0972999E4F90C33F823B557B@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:46:25 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <254C740C-53FE-438D-9524-03EC4A3733FE@isi.edu>
References: <20140520204238.21772.64347.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <500031A0-DF45-409E-AACB-F79C32032E38@viagenie.ca> <4B545BEB-EA0E-4BA8-A45E-15AF12CDB1EC@piuha.net> <20150305044122.4185F2AEEC2D@rock.dv.isc.org> <EC564286-9A5E-4702-A8ED-B2C8E404E68A@piuha.net> <6056F80B-2188-4E52-AE18-35E84BA98147@vpnc.org> <D205D042-1285-46D5-B9A1-E732B23A8861@piuha.net> <D1E3F194-34AD-4968-8ACE-7E8D7990413B@isi.edu> <0972999E4F90C33F823B557B@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: bmanning@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Xhq2lBVMoM_eSRflRlDaUFgGOnw>
Cc: IAB <iab@iab.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, IETF Discussion List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 17:47:11 -0000

John, the remark was to temper what might become unrealistic expectations on the reach of the IAB/IETF
into -ANY- organizational operational practice.

That said, I do not wish to derail this document, just ensure that the caveat is in place before it is enshrined
as holy writ.

/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102

On 5March2015Thursday, at 9:39, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> --On Thursday, March 05, 2015 09:00 -0800 manning bill
> <bmanning@isi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> (I'll say that 2870bis is on thin ice, since the IETF/IAB
>> have no leverage on root server operators.  This community can
>> pontificate at length, but the actual operations will dictate,
>> not some wish list from an "arms-length" standards body…
>> Just sayin')
> 
> Bill,
> 
> Addressing this one issue only:
> 
> (1) Yes.
> 
> (2) On the other hand, RSSAC and/or "the root server operators"
> have never been what I think are called "multistakeholder
> consensus bodies".  Arguably, neither is the IETF but there is
> definitely a difference in terms of conditions for entry into
> the group and openness of participation and the consensus
> process.   So, especially in the middle of controversies about
> IANA transition and accountability of various parts of the
> system, to say, effectively, "the root server operators will do
> whatever they feel like and no one has any leverage on them" is
> an invitation to demands for policy oversight of RSSAC and the
> root server operations process by folks who represent a broader
> stakeholder base.
> 
> Perhaps the "Caucus" is intended to serve that multistakeholder
> role, but it isn't clear that it can do anything other than
> advise and its membership is appointed by the RSSAC, not the
> broader community.
> 
> If you and/or the root server operations community don't want to
> risk ending up in a multistakeholder situation that it can't
> control, some explicit respect for guidance from the IAB and/or
> IETF might serve that community's interests in the long term.
> Indeed, if I were part of that community and wanted to see more
> or less the status quo preserved, I'd be looking to replaced or
> supplement 2870bis with an explicit MOU or other agreement about
> IETF and/or IAB review or supervision.   However obnoxious that
> might be, I'm certain it would be preferable to effective
> oversight by some body dominated by ICANN politics.
> 
> best,
>     john
> 
> 
> 
>