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

Stephen Farrell <> Wed, 11 January 2017 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97DD8129487 for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:57:57 -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 I4aRwPn2dfk3 for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:57:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE30A12947D for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:57:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C4B1BE39; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:57:53 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7OxfF_RoE-DF; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:57:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A500BE2F; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:57:51 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1484099871; bh=ImUyxDS7M75I0ww9KUWC0M7YskTldG543CHHEIh4mOo=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=NJNK8JhWLbUWp6JbT+NNnCkhwxV1Yx59aGfMJ5gnuE/RxBNmPOjm+BLOfkquw+9OA toqh5LNFAMdn5TP4tmRw5Tyqgv1do0tG9Z5rvXL0nERlYn/eRT9n2Eey3weiZIOeZD Q1AJK0cf1jHf2+NPEhdz0GxUJfGufl3i9OvaKO24=
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 01:57:51 +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="------------ms070206010700080903020402"
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 01:57:57 -0000


On 11/01/17 01:43, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Sorry about the top post, but there's an important correction to be
> made here.
> _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.

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"?

I don't think we ought disturb that impression by being overly
serious about any of this, even if (or particularly if:-) others
appear to be that serious.

IANA folks do a fine job with protocol registries but I figure
it'd be a fail for us to accidentally treat the concepts involved
as being so precious that Lars' github repo starts to appear
significantly more attractive.

Bringing it back to the draft in question, my substantive comment
is that I don't care about the IETF trust issues and conclude that
reasonable grammar ought win in this case.


> Best regards,
> A