Re: [tlp-interest] Proposed Policy on Rights in IANA Parameter Registry Data

Brian E Carpenter <> Sun, 20 September 2020 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92EA33A00D2 for <>; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 15:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 FGojBnlBAfGj for <>; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 15:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15F233A0F4E for <>; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 15:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a9so6318516pjg.1 for <>; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 15:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wCYEzHJxXK7d7WRcd+HBsUEGtVNgPesBmgczpaXxs/o=; b=bqEB38xmAxw7QD8+XyEHNeB84j8UWeS0COyxv85pbt+biOoqPdsjhq0+0qX+vSx/ds +FE/JFp/z3a6TdA2O9j7YMP715W8oHU2+KBN5uQryxvzS/K3Fbq95+vfTCkW3pHSUzfF Mw+kEB8ip5lbxd3yWJtAtASt0VRmHhcyJWHT7UEtj9N8slPLaVRJfES+6mAMT3DGM3Pr 4A9TyCK//6wCTPQ+zoitlqOE3vtTGMRsci9JEY7NVip5VwSKxo2uZIr4KlrI/BPXTR9J LRUeyvaupuYgwfVwXUSMVkIhw93Hz4jVir9ESdlU+fKzK0D2UztK9cJf3kQKmTEdAGos 17RA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wCYEzHJxXK7d7WRcd+HBsUEGtVNgPesBmgczpaXxs/o=; b=VgpIBIX+CXxQA8h7QHlMlQyTHRDyHNLVPDwxx2eRB3s4NtUg1qv9WcVQuxwtOcsBzA GLs193Mwzn0KfA5Hy1AnzY8UvbFHm868qNgkTp8zSaDkB+KaOUfbbP87rba3FR0kS3u5 +r6hTX4lqj/Rzb04QFQvzEg78T6AgXUiJ5bFQ2wCePwKE/P59TqvQPS3Q1FgT9XTOz+L y3yj6FXBeUDGj4pd8NUe/VMJbC8AieG4Wc8KPqbAHfx8UmTb+q3yjdO3y9ECSgVrmoLD 1Ti4jK0ZjtKBwhYU336qNHbkppLfQiADBc6k/1OMsSj4BsEahIWoXdC3tArHFDiqEQFU b4yA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532BDb6Nv4C6QsTFjoUsxvVeD3WkNA4GPBLeB4+l31dP5bQO684+ QHd+Axzwo7ZMWME/LxF1HmDMH/zZy9I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxqG1Uy5MCi7StMUntOuBaWfC1BsBMFUTtnvEapAuptSFCDPF/NJb5XPfNj/RUGvIjjhQl3Xg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:317:: with SMTP id ay23mr21978868pjb.68.1600641266209; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 15:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id g24sm10105153pfk.65.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 20 Sep 2020 15:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
To: John Levine <>,
References: <20200920215022.B8D59216A77F@ary.qy>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 10:34:21 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200920215022.B8D59216A77F@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tlp-interest] Proposed Policy on Rights in IANA Parameter Registry Data
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of proposed revisions to the Trust Legal Provisions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2020 22:34:29 -0000

On 21-Sep-20 09:50, John Levine wrote:
> In article <> you write:
>> Hi,
>> I support this in general, but have a few comments:
>> 1) I would like to be reassured that ICANN has no problems with this. It seems quite consistent with history and
>> current practice, but ICANN actually operates the IANA service and the public registries, so I don't think we can
>> declare the policy without informing them.
> Good point.  We've sent this to PTI and asked them if they have any concerns.
>> 2) I believe that the text should note that most domain registrations are not concerned by this, but that the
>> "technical" domain registrations are. And the same applies to the "specialised" address block assignments. We
>> surely "own" names like .localhost.,, and address blocks like 64:ff9b:1::/48.
> This is about the parameters in the protocol registry. That includes
> the names in Special-Use Domain Names registry but we don't treat that any
> differently than any other registry.

Yes, agreed, but mentioning this is in the "avoidance of doubt" category.
> For IP addresses the tables mix stuff we've reserved and stuff IANA
> has allocated and I would not want try to pick apart who does (not)
> own what there.

Indeed it is a bit mixed up, and copyright of actual numbers, whether
binary, decimal or hexdecimal is a nonsense anyway. I must confess that
I can't invent sensible wording about this.


> R's,
> John