Re: IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: <draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt> (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)

[Patrik Fältström <[e-mail]>]

On 19 jun 2013, at 10:59, SM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I'll highlight part of a comment from Steve Crocker:
> 
>   (I sometimes have to explain to my colleagues at ICANN who have not had the
>   benefit of the IETF experience that "let's send it over to the IETF" doesn't
>   work.  The IETF isn't a standing army ready to do ours or anyone else's work.
>   Rather, I say, it's a place where the relevant people can get together to get
>   their work done.
> 
> It is easy to see why there isn't significant progress about DNS-related issues in the IETF.  If nobody volunteers to do the work the work does not get done.  Whether the problems are acute enough to require surgery is not for me to decide.

Correct, and this is a/the weakness of both IETF and ICANN. And to some degree there might be parties that see the lack of progress as a good thing...

> The ITU does work as the IETF does not show interest in doing that work when it had the opportunity to do so.  I would not worry too much about ICANN inventing as, to quote John Klensin:
> 
>  I don't know whether that is because they don't have time to write shorter
>  reports or because they don't think the subject matter can be covered in
>  more concise reports, but the pattern is clear,   When those committees
>  cannot agree or discover the issues are, in fact, contentious, they
>  typically recommend the creation of more committees.

This is one pattern, correct. And lack of RFCs is one of the reasons "more committees" is an attractive tool.

I am not saying this is the only issue, I see it is one of them.

Take (lack of) progress of draft-liman-tld-names for example.

The need for this draft is in the ICANN context, not the IETF context, so of course it is hard to see the need in the IETF. Lack of an RFC there is by definition creating discussions in ICANN that goes on and on.

And do not let me get started on EPP or Whois issues... ;-)

> Sometimes people either do not see the problems or pretend not to see them (I am not inferring that you do that).  In the latter case I would be asked to explain why I think the problem is a problem when I mention it.  I am somewhat suspicious when people who have much more experience than me do that. :-)

The need is in ICANN, not in the IETF.

That I see is the largest problem. Individuals then spending time in ICANN do not, although they see the need, participate in the IETF, or do not know how to participate, or fails to express the need/problem statement in IETF.

> I don't know whether you have been following the URNbis discussions.

Oh yes! As one of the editors of the first URN documents, I have sort of a "hobby" to follow that :-P

> That WG had leisurely discussions about the drafts since over three years. It has not been able to publish a single RFC.  DNSEXT has been in shutdown mode since over a year.  The call for adoption of a draft in DNSOP failed as there wasn't significant interest within the working group to do that work.

That is one of the problems for IETF. "Can not say yes" to something, while it seems (if I exaggerate) ITU and ICANN "Can not say no" to things.

> I'll ask a question to the other persons subscribed to this mailing list.  Are there other active participants in ICANN interested in doing work in the IETF?

  Patrik