Subject: [Ianaplan] Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:30:16 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06: Yes

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.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

I support this document enthusiastically. I've provided editorial
suggestions below.

= Section 1 =
"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."

You might include a citation:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions

= Section 2 =
"There are, however, points of interaction between other
   organizations, and a few cases where we may further define the scope
   of a registry for technical purposes."

s/we/the IETF/

--

s/ICANN or the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)/ICANN and the Regional
Internet Registries (RIRs)/

--

"Please also see the references at the bottom of this document."

This seems too vague. There are many references at the bottom of the
document, not all of which are relevant to answering the RFP question
about policy development and dispute resolution. It seems like this
sentence could be deleted.

--

s/with the same affiliation/with the same employment affiliation/

--

"Especially when relationships
   among protocols call for it, many registries are operated by, or in
   conjunction with, other bodies."

I think this would be clearer if it said "Especially when relationships
   among protocols call for it, many registries are operated by with
input and coordination from other bodies." The "operated" verb is
otherwise confusing when read together with the sentence that follows.

--

s/all input is welcome./all input was welcome./

(or Pete's suggestion works for me too)

--

In addition to Adrian's suggestion, I think the response to Section VI of
the RFP needs these direct links:

IANAPLAN WG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ianaplan/charter/
Agenda from IETF 91: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/ianaplan/agenda
Minutes from IETF 91: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/ianaplan/minutes
Agenda from the interim meeting: <fill in>
Minutes from the interim meeting: <fill in>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 22:15:29 +0100

Hi Alissa,

Thanks for your comments, and for your leadership in this process.

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/
I propose to do just this.

>    of a registry for technical purposes."

I propose to accept this change.

I propose to accept this change.

Amusingly nearly all of the (now normatively) referenced RFCs are
process documents.  I would be happy to modify the sentence to indicate
that.

I went back to RFC 3777 to check this.  Strictly speaking it's not
necessarily employment.  It could be contractual, for instance.  How
this is defined is left to the honor of participants.  But perhaps I'm
looking at the wrong reference.  In any event, I would propose retaining
the statement as is.

In this case I believe the word "operated" is consistent with the word
"operator" in the next sentence.  The examplar is e164.arpa, which is
operated by RIPE.  It would not be correct to indicate that they just
provide input.  However, perhaps the real confusion is the word
"bodies"?  Maybe s/bodies/organizations/?

A semantically identical change is already proposed based on LC comments.

This is present in the announcement of the working group.
> Minutes from IETF 91: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/ianaplan/minutes.

I propose to include the above links.
> Minutes from the interim meeting: <fill in>

I do not have pointers for these, but would happily include them if
someone else has them.

Eliot

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 13:40:23 -0800

Hi Eliot,

> process documents.  I would be happy to modify the sentence to indicate

I think the reader of this text should be able to locate the specific list of references that document our policy development and dispute resolution processes. Whether that is done directly or by reference does not matter, but the list should be specific.

> looking at the wrong reference.  In any event, I would propose retaining

I suggested this because many readers of this document might have a broader understanding of the word “affiliation” (e.g., nationality or interest group) than what is used for IETF nomcom purposes. So I think it would help to make it more specific while still being accurate. Employment or contractual affiliation?

> "bodies"?  Maybe s/bodies/organizations/?

I think the problem is “many.” Compared to how many registries are operated by ICANN, there are not “many” registries operated by other bodies. I would suggest:

"Especially when relationships among protocols call for it, registries are at times operated by, or in conjunction with, other bodies.”

> This is present in the announcement of the working group.

I think it warrants a direct link.

> I do not have pointers for these, but would happily include them if

They are available in the mailing list archive if not anywhere else.

Alissa

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 23:10:42 +0100

Hi Alissa,

> I think the reader of this text should be able to locate the specific list of references that document our policy development and dispute resolution processes. Whether that is done directly or by r…

Ok, I'd go with your original suggestion, and it also follows Housley's
rule of the job is done when one can remove no more text.

> I suggested this because many readers of this document might have a broader understanding of the word “affiliation” (e.g., nationality or interest group) than what is used for IETF nomcom purposes.…

Yes, I understood your point.  But if RFC 3777 does not go there, I
don't think we should either.

> "Especially when relationships among protocols call for it, registries are at times operated by, or in conjunction with, other bodies.”

Fair point.  Propose to accept your change.
> They are available in the mailing list archive if not anywhere else.

Found'em.

Eliot

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:13:07 -0800

Ok, this all works for me. Thanks.
Alissa

On Dec 17, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:

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