Subject: [Ianaplan] Some minor wordsmithing

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:53:53 -0500

I have two suggestions to improve the document.  I do not think these will be controversial, but one never knows.

Russ

- - - - - - - - -

Section 1, Para 1, says:

  ...  They solicited proposals regarding the
  respective functions that IANA performs, in order that they may put
  forth a proposal to the NTIA.

The proposals were solicited from the communities served by IANA.  The proposals are not about the functions performed by IANA.  The proposals are to describe a post-transition state.  My suggestion is to revise that sentence to set the stage for describing what the post-transition state for the protocol parameters.  Suggestion:

  ... They solicited proposals regarding post-transition arrangements from
  the three functional areas in order to put forth a proposal to the NTIA.

- - - - - - - - - -

Section 4 says:

  While the IANA framework has shown strong resiliency, the IETF will
  continue to work with all relevant parties to facilitate improvements
  in our standards.

Suggestion:

  While the agreement, supplements, policies, and procedures around
  the IANA function have shown strong resiliency, the IETF will
  continue to work with all relevant parties to facilitate improvements
  while maintaining availability of the IANA registries.

- - - - - - - - - -

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 08:24:10 -1000

Russ,

Please see below.

> I have two suggestions to improve the document.  I do not think these will be controversial, but one never knows.

I agree with your logic and with your proposal, and propose to include
it in the next version.

I think this is a very helpful change, stressing a key component to
transition- stability.

Eliot