Subject: [Ianaplan] Agenda for IETF 90

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 16:26:22 -0400

Hi all,

With the BoF coming up in Toronto, now seems like a good time to try
to start building an agenda.

One part of the agenda will presumably be some information from one or
more of the participants in the Co-ordination Group about what will
have transpired by then.  The CG is supposed to have its first meeting
just prior to the IETF meeting.

Another question that we should probably try to answer is what sort of
output from the IETF is the right thing to send to the CG for
incorporation into any future proposal for the NTIA.  Here are some
ideas, but I don't expect them to be exhaustive:

- nothing since we already have everything documented
- a draft that explains in brief what is already documented in
2850/2860/6220/MoU supplement and points to those
- a version of 6220 published on the IETF stream
- a 2860bis (John Curran has made such a proposal)

It strikes me that if people want to argue for one or more of those
positions, a 5-minute (I mean it) presentation of the argument in the
BoF wouldn't be awful.

Best regards,

Andrew (one of the co-chairs.  I haven't cleared this with Marc.
Stupidity is mine.)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:02:09 +1200

> 2860bis (John Curran has made such a proposal)

There's been so much email that I've lost track of that proposal.

I'd want to know first what is the problem with 2860 as it stands.
(I mean of course what is the problem with the underlying MoU,
since the RFC is simply a transcript of the ink-signature document.)

Not that the MoU is perfect simply because I signed it, but it was
very hard-won and I would need convincing that the community should
go round that loop again.

So, as a possible agenda item, the problem statement?

   Brian

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 17:41:19 -0400

Sorry, I wasn't clear, and anyway I can't find the reference now so maybe I misattributed.  What I recall was a suggestion that, as things are, it's too complicated to follow all the pieces (MoU updates and so on).  So, publish a new single version.  

Anyway, that's what I was attributing to John, but maybe he's not the one who said it.  Many apologies.  

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan 
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

On Jul 11, 2014, at 17:02, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 02:50:42 +0300

FWIW, I am in the camp that we need little or no new things, and that explanation/description of existing procedures and mechanisms might be all that is needed. Or at least, we need a fairly major reason to re-open documents.

Although, of course, we should actually do the work and describe how the existing IETF/IANA arrangements for protocol parameters address the expectations placed on the system. Here is a the party that sets the policies, there is the party that implements the policy by maintaining a database, these are the mechanisms how the global community can track what is going on, this is the management structure for managing the operation, those are the tools that we can use if something goes wrong, … Much of this is in the existing RFCs and MoUs and procedures, potentially everything. But if we do see something that is missing we should describe that.

Jari

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:41:55 -0700

Hello,
At 14:41 11-07-2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>Sorry, I wasn't clear, and anyway I can't find the reference now so 
>maybe I misattributed.  What I recall was a suggestion that, as 
>things are, it's too complicated to follow all the pieces (MoU 
>updates and so on).  So, publish a new single version.
>
>Anyway, that's what I was attributing to John, but maybe he's not 
>the one who said it.

I read various IETF mailing lists.  I also review the IANA 
considerations section in IETF drafts.  Over the years I have not 
seen any comment about RFC 2860 updates or that the document(s) is 
difficult to follow.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Leslie Daigle (TCE)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:30:10 -0400

FWIW, I'm in general agreement re. little or no new things.  It does 
occur to me to wonder if the IETF/IAB CG folks could report back on 
where other members of the *CG* could use firmer documentation about 
IETF works.  I.e., use the CG as a "focus group" for determining what's 
missing, if anything.

Leslie.

On 7/11/14, 7:50 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> FWIW, I am in the camp that we need little or no new things, and that
> explanation/description of existing procedures and mechanisms might
> be all that is needed. Or at least, we need a fairly major reason to
> re-open documents.
>
> Although, of course, we should actually do the work and describe how
> the existing IETF/IANA arrangements for protocol parameters address
> the expectations placed on the system. Here is a the party that sets
> the policies, there is the party that implements the policy by
> maintaining a database, these are the mechanisms how the global
> community can track what is going on, this is the management
> structure for managing the operation, those are the tools that we can
> use if something goes wrong, … Much of this is in the existing RFCs
> and MoUs and procedures, potentially everything. But if we do see
> something that is missing we should describe that.
>
> Jari
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing
> list [email-masked]

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 05:15:16 -0700

On 7/11/14, 4:50 PM, "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>explanation/description of existing procedures and mechanisms might be
>all that is needed. Or at least, we need a fairly major reason to re-open
>documents.
>
>Although, of course, we should actually do the work and describe how the
>existing IETF/IANA arrangements for protocol parameters address the
>expectations placed on the system. Here is a the party that sets the
>policies, there is the party that implements the policy by maintaining a
>database, these are the mechanisms how the global community can track
>what is going on, this is the management structure for managing the
>operation, those are the tools that we can use if something goes wrong,

I think it would be reasonable to write a draft that contains a blurb
about each of the above items and a citation to the appropriate existing
RFC or other document, and call that our piece of the transition plan.

Alissa 

> … Much of this is in the existing RFCs and MoUs and procedures,
>potentially everything. But if we do see something that is missing we
>should describe that.
>Jari
>