Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] [Iana-strategy] Pete Resnick's Abstain on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 07:54:53 +0300

Thanks for your careful (as always) review, Pete :-)

>   The WG will identify, but not create, such required agreements.

Personally, I think that is reasonable. What do others think?

> NEW
>   Fully documenting the interaction between the IETF and the operator
>   of IETF protocol parameters registries may require detailed terms of
>   agreements or other details of procedures that are normally delegated
>   to and handled by the IAB or IAOC. The working group will not attempt
>   to produce or discuss documentation for these details, but will
>   request the IAB or IAOC to provide them, either to be included as an
>   appendix to the WG's output document, or in a separate document
>   provided by the IAB or IAOC.

I’m fine with the rationale for the change and most of your text, but I have trouble understanding the last parts. What if we simply said "…. but will request the IAB or IAOC to provide them separately."?

> I also think the first milestone should be updated similarly to not talk
> in terms of the "proposal”.

Ok.

Jari

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:39:11 +0300

I agree with Pete's suggestion on the first point, and with Jari's
modification on the second point.

On Eliot's mesage:
On Thursday, September 4, 2014, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:

> How will this working group charter allow the working group to produce
> something that allows you and Alissa to stand behind a given proposal and
> say that the IETF supports it?  The first sentence of deliverables section
> suggests, rather that the group will produce RFC 6220 or an update, which
> it is then not allowed to do.
>

I don't see it as implying any update to 6220.  And I think the charter
says that the WG will produce a document describing what we need from the
transition, with IETF consensus behind it.  Isn't that what Jari and Alissa
need?

> Also, please keep in mind that according to that ICG draft we have about
> 2 months and 28 days to move on all of this.

Indeed, the schedule is tight.
 All the more reason to get this chartered, and to give the chairs a
running start.

 Barry

On Thursday, September 4, 2014, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>> wrote:

> I'm fine with the rationale for the change and most of your text, but I
> have trouble understanding the last parts. What if we simply said ".... but
> will request the IAB or IAOC to provide them separately."?
>
> > in terms of the "proposal".
>
> Ok.
>
> Jari
>
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 11:01:30 +0300

Last night, the IESG approved the IANAPLAN WG and its charter (with edits). Those edits are here, the full charter below, and the formal announcement for this will be sent later.

http://www.arkko.com/ietf/ianaplan/ianaplanwg-after-from-before.diff.html

Jari
----

Background
==========

Registries of parameter values for use in IETF protocols are stored
and maintainted for the IETF by the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations"
section in many RFCs.

For a number of years, this IANA function has been provided by the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).  The
IETF's relationship with IANA was formalized through a Memorandum of
Understanding between the IETF and ICANN codified in 2000 with the
publication of RFC 2860.  Over time, processes and role definitions
have evolved, and have been documented in supplemental agreements.

ICANN has had a contract with the US Department of Commerce (DoC) to
provide the IANA function, undertaken through the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).  In March of
2014, NTIA announced its intention to transition out of its current
role, meaning that NTIA would not need to renew its contract with
ICANN when that contract expires 30 September 2015.  NTIA requested a
transition proposal be prepared to outline the necessary
arrangements. In the case of the elements of the IANA function
concerning the IETF protocol registries, it is likely that the
existing well-documented practices will continue and no or little new
activity will be required.

Tasks
=====

The IANAPLAN working group is chartered to produce an IETF consensus
document that describes the expected interaction between the IETF and
the operator of IETF protocol parameters registries.

The system in place today for oversight of the IETF protocol
registries component of the IANA function works well. As a result,
minimal change in the oversight of the IETF protocol parameters
registries is preferred in all cases and no change is preferred when
possible. The working group will address the implications of moving
the NTIA out of its current role with respect to IANA on the IETF
protocol parameters registry function in a way that focuses on
continuation of the current arrangements.  The working group will
assume the following documents continue to be in effect:

- RFC 2850
- RFC 3777 and its updates
- RFC 2860
- RFC 6220
- IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000
   (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000.pdf)
- ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreements
   (updated yearly since 2007, the 2014 version is available at
   http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/
   2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf)

This working group is chartered solely with respect to the planning
needed for the transition, and is not meant to cover other topics
related to IANA. Possible improvements outside that scope will be set
aside for future consideration. However, the mechanisms required to
address the removal of the overarching NTIA contract may require
additional documentation or agreements. The WG will identify, but
not create, such required agreements.

Should proposals made by other communities regarding the
transition of other IANA functions affect the IETF protocol parameter
registries or the IETF, the WG may also review and comment on them.

request the IAB or IAOC to provide them separately.

The WG shall seek the expertise of the IAB IANA Evolution Program to
formulate its output. It is expected that members of the IAB IANA
Strategy Program will actively participate in the WG.

Milestones

Jan 2015	 complete protocol parameters registries document
May 2015	 review of other transition proposals, if needed
Sep 2015	 close

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 17:07:55 +0300

> 
> Will there be two different IAB IANA programs? The previous version had "Strategy" in both places.
> 

Oops, forgot to correct the other one. Corrected now. Thanks!

FYI: Despite the name of the list Cced on this e-mail, the official name of the program is IANA Evolution program: http://www.iab.org/activities/programs/iana-evolution-program/

Jari

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 19:59:29 -0700

Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-04: Abstain

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ianaplan/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry for the late review. I've got two concerns. Normally, if I was on
the call, I would BLOCK for the moment so that we could discuss these.
But I'm highly unlikely to be on the call tomorrow. So I'm putting in an
ABSTAIN, since barring other info I really think these should be dealt
with. I hope I'll be able to get to email in the morning, see people's
responses (or agreements to make changes) and I'll switch to YES. I may
be able to sneak onto the call for a short bit. But if not, I don't want
to block going forward if you feel like these issues have been properly
addressed. I hope you will address these issues before approving the
charter.

1:

   However, the mechanisms required to address the removal of the
   overarching NTIA contract may require additional documentation or
   agreements.

This leaves the impression that the WG is chartered to create "additional
documentation or agreements." I don't think that's true. I think you
should probably add to this:

2:

OLD
   Some parts of the transition proposal may need to document detailed
   terms of agreements or other details of procedures that are normally
   delegated to and handled by the IAB or IAOC. The working group will
   not attempt to produce or discuss documentation for these details,
   but will request the IAB or IAOC to provide them ready for submission
   as part of the final proposal.

This sort of undid the bit that was in -03 which said that the WG need
not put these things into it's output RFC. I don't see any discussion on
the list as to why this changed. Not only that, it (for the first time in
the charter) refers to "the transition proposal". The work item at the
top of "Tasks" is a "document that describes the expected interaction
between the IETF and the operator". Now we're talking about "proposals".
I suggest the following change:

NEW

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:16:11 -0700

>   provided by the IAB or IAOC.

[BA] To be clear, the IAOC does not require the consensus of the IANAPLAN WG to negotiate SLAs and other agreements with the IANA functions operator chosen by the IAB. They were granted that authority by RFC 6220. Also, the IANAPLAN WG does not substitute for legal counsel, no matter how many "amateur lawyers" might join the WG.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 08:27:49 -0500

On Friday, September 5, 2014, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Last night, the IESG approved the IANAPLAN WG and its charter (with
> edits). Those edits are here, the full charter below, and the formal
> announcement for this will be sent later.
>

Will there be two different IAB IANA programs? The previous version had
"Strategy" in both places.

Spencer