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

Donald Eastlake <> Tue, 10 January 2017 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3C6A129D8D for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:00:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, 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 GDaPlpGDA12T for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:00:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57D7D129D7E for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:00:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x2so96916194itf.1 for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:00:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3CFrjvmG/yT28CF1aj5vidZZihipi3e1gVa4iXkQAXc=; b=IHXdY5WbQsIdPaaR7ji9p3c7R8uhnksNtH9awbp1UNJG028CE+jXn3ovqj68T6AiWB PrGFA99bKGswFIoHA2rVxHZ9tLqeUSO3mWzEDLFtnBN8FqHgYQdN8NTVs10iY6Tl2ZVJ pw4RKFlCwfcDxyqvP0NtVqb+1/fr+TXQ1byN3de4n6gq7yVfmrGZoaBdt0wMrNz94GKx JcsFsH9VRJlaSu36jTyawc75X2mQ6ar5xLEANLwC47zWemAkq6QC9L0vlQEesqrO/ppV 0LKy99w3LXdDDDRY0R/XjlEqPMMBwmuSNH1k9QyJFFsyIrTGnJ87H8V9zo/VUWAKcwHq iIdQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3CFrjvmG/yT28CF1aj5vidZZihipi3e1gVa4iXkQAXc=; b=sClDcvsToCvFpTTfWoXfphqvz18F+YlBj2DOfI5JJ6raqdg9PW34aC8Bmc+uDuRblQ NE3+ev9pJaGqdsk0RDmj3z8O5aLu26SZx0R2IDyMtLTJf94HOvEt5NgTwLpdGVRre0bd A3Oerbul8rKL9E43PTC/0uzk3xm7iOD0ACxNSbvG0PZkzmjR0yqi4Aixeay0DVsvstE5 egov/VcjWXXsPqxXdvXqgR5/ofylTZJPCK/n6++5OwWjowYEtQYMnTBXjQ2GrqrkYfty tvMPCyUwsRugSKlZ4OCB63jtNI52+6cjYxvDa4CFc8Zvx3eqBDJ4O/BvDB6GAjtw/yIc ioag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXI414S838ArlChNHAyT9ndyxZje3bnvaj8KeEQeiWt72JjnfGnYFmGIwQxtkIbWFjYpg/hat++nlH1pjw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id v185mr1489089itc.59.1484078434992; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:00:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:00:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Donald Eastlake <>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:00:19 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-19.txt
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
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 20:00:46 -0000

I agree with Brian below. I've recently seen other stuff muddled up by
this silly global replacement of "IANA" by "IANA Services".

In the case of the draft in question, it seems to me that at most one
statement like "IANA is instantiated by an IANA Services contractor."
or the like would be plenty. All other references can just be "IANA".

On the no IANA actions case, my understanding was that IANA wanted the
IANA Considerations section saying that no IANA actions were required
to stay in the document and subsequent RFC but that the IESG wanted it
removed on publication. I don't care. But if that disagreement is
still the same, then IESG should prevail. What I say in my documents,
which seems to work fine, is

          This document requires no IANA actions. RFC Editor: Please
remove this section before publication.

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<> wrote:
> Hi,
>> 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.)
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter