Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available

John Curran <> Mon, 21 July 2014 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E43001A007C for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2neP1d4N2sht for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0DA61A000D for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1X9Eho-00076g-Og; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:36:44 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Report-Abuse-To: (see for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX192cneI2qOiX7ULjBUS73H9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: John Curran <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:36:42 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Russ Housley <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Cc:, Avri Doria <>
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:36:49 -0000

On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:16 AM, Russ Housley <> wrote:

> The IETF community will be responsible for the proposal for protocol parameters. I expect that interested individuals will be working with the name community or the numbers community to make sure that the right things are happening in each of those proposals as well.  Coordination will be needed where there is overlap, such as anycast addresses and special-purpose names.  That said, once the whole proposal is stitched together, it will be reviewed by all three communities and many other interested parties.

This is a reasonable approach, given that there is a dedicated coordinating
group that can facilitate the necessary review and coordination steps to make 
a consistent proposal. It would also be helpful if an IAB/IETF IANA framework 
<> for all of the IETF
registries (i.e. technical "protocol parameter" ones, more "general purpose" 
registries of DNS root zone, IP address spaces, ASN spaces, etc.) were to 
be published, as this would help make plain the IETF's generic expectations 
for the registries component of its successful Internet protocol development


Disclaimer: My views alone.