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

"R. Atkinson" <> Thu, 17 September 2020 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0776D3A0EFF for <>; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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 Jg7QE7dPR5B1 for <>; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6AF23A0EF8 for <>; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q5so4246492qkc.2 for <>; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=yf8t1Vtzwf53YYyCewtsR3Pn/QWEJq68vk1pms9scjg=; b=AMhn6JIThVGGezlirBR5/1Nu8GUjkGu9CPsN0mBxQIsH3xdcqmhbF6j9CxBbqLngD8 inKfL3dg9dATU9BCGQ2WPRbMLdP+8MvRu6p1rCKyEH9khAFKNoi45V0rcBSesFvv+sDe YJRadikdhslDV4y5NX+JGoDxn+fWRLebhBEMAiJEHN3E3EgRyZ7CVVDwnKyLNQRvoyrb +nhBvWalryK30ae5Mzh4AvBmulQqPwNNpfiygI5pNCvn1TxCJ3wHFs8Ey0UD+tRV+cM7 2hh52LH1PVCFb5qblggNfafZDn7MQlJojRmTiescrL1BuxTR1Szo266+oqcoW4Gfbp4v nG9Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=yf8t1Vtzwf53YYyCewtsR3Pn/QWEJq68vk1pms9scjg=; b=SpLaEz5qp+FBstcQCWk43ZGkAbWxN3fQW4Sr548TEzfMDvx2MsaTF7InGmlHDwXWMc yg5g5w6JXMVr0oIYy5huupPOdszpZk5Bx+KAhAih1x9DoFGTQ4t0N3H3/raRoPf4Cxt9 hBC4WopK6UH0LCZx9v/k/e3rgyljF6DUI/o1HnfVpY255SmYqB/vYBX/ffnVyANzOJ1A F64utJWPpflqeDG3KsPG/xsoA8ajNHIdNXhQ2vgg82PLT1hppdmqq2FwJMwWQJWOn1Ur FFzp4cU4vO+/qeDrbZjSqnfqJPq5gkHU21m6KyGQx+/1o5Bz7rlwzH7AXlmkOJODOXIq A4fQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Wb7Z0dAqgKY4bzs/tpmSDoY/ykjeOqGu46+lzt18+UI0xDMbG ye3ZzQyUT5QnvhtIZh0ul5qbZxFhWbE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxQj8KticHcx6ETZcbH5T9KYP7XkdowfmVWEgapmzKKQjuG4eqj4NVbJofNII8wxCc13kvHpA==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:7dc4:: with SMTP id y187mr29872782qkc.325.1600385842464; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 10sm926181qkk.88.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: "R. Atkinson" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.15\))
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 19:37:20 -0400
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.15)
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: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 23:37:25 -0000

> On Sep 16, 2020, at 22:09, The IETF Trust <> wrote:
> This proposed policy by the IETF Trustees is intended to clarify the situation by providing a formal declaration that the material is to be considered in the Public Domain as detailed in the Creative Commons Zero (CC0) declaration.   


I think it likely that such a formal declaration would cause people to believe
that anyone can use OR allocate — any value (including values which are
reserved or otherwise not yet formally assigned by IANA) for any purpose
they wish.

From a protocol interoperability perspective, it is important that the current
situation where defined policies guide IANA and IANA controls what is in
the IANA registries remain under IETF & IANA control.

The alternative to the current policy-driven IANA management of the IANA
registries is likely to be chaos and increased non-interoperability.

It might be (not sure) that this concern could be resolved by some declaration 
other than CC0 or by adding additional words as an integral part of some 
declaration (to be written by Trust lawyers) in the style of CC0 but explicitly 
reserving IANA control over registry allocations (in accord with the various 
allocation policies which have been defined and will be defined in future).