Re: Split the IANA functions?

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 07/01/2014 14:27, John Curran wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 01/06/2014 08:51 PM, John Curran wrote:
>>> What happens when the IETF makes a decision that particular "public policy" requirements 
>>> are _to be considered_ (perpass), or specifically _not to be considered_ (RFC 2804) in protocol
>>> development? 
>> I think that's a mis-characterisation. IMO both of those are cases
>> where there are sound technical reasons for the IETF to do, or not
>> do, work. Yes, those have impacts, but the public policy angle (if
>> that's the right term) is a side-effect and is not the reason for
>> the decision.
> 
> Stephen - 
>  
>  I did not mean to imply that the primary driver was the IETF taking
>  on a public policy matter; only that the decision being made (even 
>  if on a sound technical basis) have real public policy implications, 
>  and thus will attract interest of many non-technical parties, including
>  governments.

Of course, this has been true of every major technology innovation for
the last couple of thousand years, once the technology pervades society.
So we shouldn't be surprised or alarmed when public policy implications
of IETF technical decisions show up.

It's certainly true that in the current case, and the cases of RFC 1984
and 2804, there were public events and debates prior to the IETF taking
a position. I don't see why we should be worried by that either, as long
as we take technically based decisions that help the Internet work better.

    Brian