Re: [Internetgovtech] Guiding the Evolution of the IANA Protocol Parameter Registries

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

I agree with Chip's comments, and in particular:

On 04/03/2014 06:30, Chip Sharp (chsharp) wrote:
...

>> 4. Any contemplated changes to the protocol parameters
>> function should use the current RFCs and model as the
>> starting point.
>> 
>> The protocol parameters function is working well, and as a
>> result wholesale changes to the role of the IETF vis a vis
>> the function are not warranted. The IETF/IANA Memorandum of
>> Understanding [RFC2860] is a good model to work from in the
>> event that other parties do want to contemplate changes.
>> Put quite simply: evolution, not revolution.
> 
> This statement should be strengthened to be more assertive
> and should be moved to the top. RFC2860 is not just a "good
> model to work from", it is the controlling document for the
> IANA's Protocol Parameter Registry operation along with
> RFC6220.  

Agreed; it's a binding document today and should remain so.
In fact, no changes to the IETF's IANA function that we
delegated to ICANN can be made without IETF consent; that is
an intended side-effect of the existing MoU.

If other SDOs wanted to contract with ICANN-IANA for services
it would be a model for *them* to work from, but as far as the
IETF is concerned it's a done deal. Maybe that was the intended
meaning, but that isn't clear from the text.

   Brian