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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 11 January 2017 01:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B858A1295FA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:43:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 tjX6TcNx2Cg6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [50.116.54.116]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6AB1295DB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40BEC11525; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:43:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P8aQFXgmKXyo; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:43:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.16.34.16] (192-0-220-231.cpe.teksavvy.com [192.0.220.231]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93F00114DB; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:43:32 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-19.txt
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14C92)
In-Reply-To: <1f2bf011-78aa-2f64-d1c3-078b970830a7@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 20:43:24 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <655EC56B-4EF6-487D-8C70-BD91221D10D2@anvilwalrusden.com>
References: <148406571988.22226.2636377293389742409.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <b82941e6-c551-f5c3-0ebd-cc0e9a95dfdb@gmail.com> <20170110201914.GK1426@mx2.yitter.info> <1f2bf011-78aa-2f64-d1c3-078b970830a7@gmail.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/t7NcZa6G9SXMFMnujz8qb1who54>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:43:27 -0000

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.  

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan 
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 20:37, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 11/01/2017 09:19, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 08:44:49AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> 
>>> Sorry, but I find the replacement of "IANA" by "IANA Services" throughout
>>> the draft to be both ugly and plain wrong.
>> 
>> Well, we need something other than "IANA", because the IETF is but one
>> user of that mark, and the license that the IETF Trust gave to PTI
>> does not permit them to refer to themselves as "IANA".
> 
> I don't care what they call themselves. *WE* are writing this document,
> we own the IANA trademark, and we can do exactly what we want with it.
> 
>> Would "IANA Services Operator" do?
> 
> It is clumsy and pointless, but at least it's grammatical.
> 
>>> But it doesn't matter: this document is about what IANA does.
>> 
>> I think that's not quite correct.  It's about what the IANA Services
>> Operator for the protocol parameters registries (and other registries
>> for which the IETF is policy authority) does.
> 
> The distinction escapes me. Anyway, as Bob Hinden suggested, this can
> all be taken care by a simple sentence at the beginning.
> 
>    Brian
>