Subject: [Ianaplan] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 07:02:41 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on IANA
        Authors         : Eliot Lear
                          Russ Housley
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00.txt
	Pages           : 20
	Date            : 2014-10-06

Abstract:
   This document contains the a draft response to a request for
   proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
   regarding the protocol parameters registries.  It is meant to be
   included in an aggregate proposal that also includes contributions
   covering names and addresses that will be submitted from their
   respective operational communities.  The IETF community is invited to
   comment and propose changes to this document.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:15:08 +0200

Thanks for this.

I think that the first sentence in 1 should be more closely aligned with the
NTIA annoucement by adding at the end "to the global multistakeholder
community", so it would read:

"In March of 2014 the U.S.  National Telecommunications & Information
Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition oversight of
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions to the global
multistakeholder community."

If I understand correctly, III.B is a description of the current situation.

In that case, under

>>>  Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal
>>>  basis on which the mechanism rests.
>>>

The response should read:

"Since the current agreements do not specify a venue, the jurisdiction would
be a national court as determined by the nature of the dispute."

If I understand correctly, section IV has not yet been updated to reflect
the discussions that took place in the conference call.

So I suppose that version 01 will reflect those discussions.

Thanks and best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: mercredi, 8. octobre 2014 16:03
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Ianaplan] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00.txt
>
>
>
>         Title           : Draft Response to the Internet
> Coordination Group Request for Proposals on IANA
>         Authors         : Eliot Lear
>                           Russ Housley
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>

---

From: Andrei Robachevsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:50:04 +0200

>    >>> What registries are involved in providing the service or
>    >>> activity.
>    >>>
> 
> 
>    IETF Response:
>    The protocol parameter registries are the product of IETF work.
>    Administration of the protocol parameter registries is the service
>    that is provide to the IETF.
> 

I wonder if we should be more specific here, especially regarding the
overlapping registries and services:

"IETF Response:

The protocol parameter registries are the product of IETF work. These
include the Internet numbers registries for which the IETF defines the
overall structure and maintains specific sub-registries (such as
Special-Purpose IP Address Registries [RFC6890], IPv4 Multicast Address
Space Registry [RFC5771] and IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry
[RFC3307]) as indicated in their registration procedure.

Administration of the protocol parameter registries is the service that
is provide (sic, should be "provided") to the IETF."

And then further in the text:

>       The IETF has established registries with IANA for special IPv4 and
>       IPv6 assignments.  These are specified in [RFC6890].  The IETF
>       coordinates such assignments with the RIRs.
> 

The IETF defines the overall structure of the internet number registries
and maintains sub-registries for special IPv4 and IPv6 assignments.
These are specified in [RFC3307, RFC5771 and RFC6890].  The IETF
coordinates such assignments with the RIRs.

>    o  IETF standards changes may have impact on operations of RIRs and
>       service providers.  A recent example is the expansion of the BGP
>       community field from 16 to 32 bits.[RFC6793]  It is important to
>       note that this change occurred out of operational necessity, and
>       it demonstrated strong alignment between the RIRs and the IETF.

I think it should refer to four-octet ASNs, so:

   o  IETF standards changes may have impact on operations of RIRs and
service providers.  A recent example is the extensions to BGP to carry
the Autonomous System numbers as four-octet entities [RFC6793]. It is
important to note that this change occurred out of operational
necessity, and it demonstrated strong alignment between the RIRs and the
IETF.

Andrei

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 12:52:36 +0200

At 11:50 09/10/2014, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>  It is important to note that this change occurred out of 
> operational necessity, and it demonstrated strong alignment between 
> the RIRs and the IETF.

Past does not bind future. Where is an accountability I can trust?
jfc