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

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 10 January 2017 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 385481297F1 for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:44:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Wq84Nnee-5V for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:44:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21D641297D0 for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:44:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y143so30972889pfb.0 for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:44:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:references:from:organization:to:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HYycZQNhVCBC/xVx05M3dZGwdxgLXrPF30soZHraG4w=; b=WUxldleE5tT7pnWMD48y1JImGY7Ar6l/Ez8muqtKyIm1U40kC8QdHfCyi6Lps46YjO xiFIVPzb1HvZP8M3c2vWeOS8TJgBrhNO7d10E07yTg75Cj7n2E5LbWFF98r5rylOpoNh o0PcWCKeejMLoDsUoUCKWjhlNkhqNMKK014/nrgHln25UduMloweIc0XwFfQBcUVqr4C vOhDFdzWnN9TDxDH0P+VTyYvjC+SIdA9BmgKuUXXZTCXmbfFhuwTqtEgHpauW2VW0UkY u67ZxY0m6A7ErTIXcKOrxduKiKzGWjH+1TA9lsaLnkgOUpxqEAKFYqnpfUJuwQTiA18+ 6JUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:from:organization:to :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HYycZQNhVCBC/xVx05M3dZGwdxgLXrPF30soZHraG4w=; b=RoGR4NcLCfIKhDN0wQdzwsiIwKq6AQ5xUQlA8JFa2ihQqKL+sKESTetBxR6v0BVpPX DSW4K5AufCNXcSwjk3KCAtLPdX/oKxo2QZQsjbC3K9yUFtWg7oyPERyy3nXjWt1NKj1Q hGCXKSas9mXCuHydycoT09MQb0Q7rKkSjp9USdjNG6+/aP72r4A3vUuvtvzYUrhKjb4M g5Y9eIkpMZ8lMtsxExcKMqmDuR1Yxbg7wu9kVUwJAHgh3+iHOerdTbyx3GPyukha9QTc nh/cSEYbnZEwaSnGwxVZP8k0M1CWhhauI0PGlUlDFjp7JVCkwrXSK36PoUyflsCp/WnT H2Rw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIX29fVo9uRjXLMHB0qrZ0NBTGB7Yu2GJfAuLuaLOLtianRLJ6Q+g1cZrmo9lLaXg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id g13mr7236245plm.78.1484077489595; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:44:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:575f:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:575f:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id x2sm7678184pfa.71.2017. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:44:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-19.txt
References: <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
To: IETF discussion list <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:44:49 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 19:44:51 -0000


> For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the
> Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Services.
> For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the
> Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Services [RFC2860].

Sorry, but I find the replacement of "IANA" by "IANA Services" throughout
the draft to be both ugly and plain wrong.

Ugly, because it reads badly in almost every sentence where it occurs.
Sentences such as "IANA Services prefers that..." are bad English at best.

Wrong, because as far as the IETF and the IAB are concerned, the function
is performed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, abbreviated as IANA.

The draft doesn't explain, what "IANA Services" is or are.
But it doesn't matter: this document is about what IANA does.

One part of the document is now simply absurd:

> 9.1.  When There Are No Actions
>    Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA Services
>    needs to know what actions (if any) it needs to perform.  Experience
>    has shown that it is not always immediately obvious whether a
>    document has no actions, without reviewing the document in some
>    detail.  In order to make it clear to IANA Services that it has no
>    actions to perform (and that the author has consciously made such a
>    determination), such documents should, after the authors confirm that
>    this is the case, include an IANA Considerations section that states:
>       This document has no actions.

Um, no, if the document has no actions it shouldn't be published.
This needs to either revert to its previous version

       This document has no IANA actions.

or for better style:

       This document requests no actions by IANA.

(The other changes in this version are fine.)

   Brian Carpenter