Subject: [Ianaplan] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:13:52 -0800

Spencer Dawkins 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for taking this task on.

I have a bunch of minor suggestions. The editors are welcome to tell me
the text has already been heavily tweaked, so I should shut up, and I'm
already a Yes ("do the right thing").

After looking at this draft, I'm even less impressed with the way we cite
BCPs than I was yesterday, but that's an IESG problem, and probably
doesn't affect balloting for this draft (no editor action required).

In this text:

Abstract

   This document contains the IETF 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 domain
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   names and numbering resources that will be submitted from their
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   respective operational communities.  The IETF community is invited to
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   comment and propose changes to this document.
   
This sentence didn't parse easily for me, and I think the problem was
just being too passive and indirect. Perhaps something like this:

Abstract

   This document contains the IETF response to a request for proposals
   from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group regarding the
   protocol parameters registries. The IETF response will be included in
an
   aggregate response, along with contributions covering domain names and

   numbering resources from the operational communities responsible for
those
   resources. The IETF community is invited to comment and propose
changes to 
   this document.
   
In this text:

1.  IETF Introduction

   Note that there are small changes to the content of the questions
   asked in order to match the RFC format.

   As if to demonstrate the last point, the following text was included
   in a footnote in the original RFP:
   
I don't understand how the following text demonstrates "the last point"
about small changes to the content of the questions. Were I to guess, my
guess would be "this was a footnote, but RFCs don't have footnotes, so we
dragged the text into the body of the document". Did I get it?

In this text:

2.  The Formal RFP Response

   >>>
   >>> 0. Proposal Type
   >>>
   >>> Identify which category of the IANA functions this
   >>> submission proposes to address:
   >>>

      IETF Response:
                     [XXX] Protocol Parameters

   This response states the existing practice of the IETF, and also
   represents the views of the Internet Architecture Board and the IETF.

Is ^this paragraph part of the IETF Response, or an observation? I'm
probably confused by how the "IETF Response:" line is indented. The next
"IETF Response:" line isn't indented as much, and if this line was
indented the same way, I'd definitely read the paragraph as part of the
IETF Response.

FOR THE IESG, no author response required: You have to love this
description of BCP9 ...

   The Internet Standards Process is documented in [RFC2026].  That
   document explains not only how standards are developed, but also how
   disputes about decisions are resolved.  RFC 2026 has been amended a
   number of times, and those amendments are indicated in [RFC-INDEX].
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^
                                                           
Is this the best we can ask authors to do in a document that is going to
people who don't read RFCs for a living? I'm afraid the answer from the
IESG may be "yes" ...

In this text:

   It is important to note that the IETF includes anyone who wishes to
   participate.  Staff and participants from ICANN or the Regional
   Internet Registries (RIRs) regularly participate in IETF activities.
   
I was somewhat confused about whether this is about who the IETF allows
to participate, or about the definition of the "the IETF". Given that
you're trying to describe who's included in non-member organization,
perhaps this could be something like:

   It is important to note that the IETF does not have formal
membership.
   The term "the IETF" includes anyone who wishes to participate in the
IETF,
   and IETF participants may also be members of other communities.  Staff
and
   participants from ICANN or the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) 
   regularly participate in IETF activities.
   
IN this text:

   o  The routing architecture has evolved over time, and is expected to
      continue to do so.  Such evolution may have an impact on
      appropriate IP address allocation strategies.  As and when that
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^
      happens, we will consult with the RIR community, as we have done
      in the past.
      
"As and when" reads roughly to me. Perhaps "As", or perhaps "If and
when"?

FOR THE IESG: In this text:

   The IAB members are selected and may be recalled through a Nominating
   Committee (NOMCOM) process, which is described in [RFC3777]. 
   
The use of one RFC as shorthand for a multi-RFC BCP in this case is
problematic, and this text doesn't even give the hand-waving "by the way,
that RFC has been updated, and you can probably find the updates in the
RFC-INDEX" that previous instances included.

In this text:

   The IAB provides oversight of the protocol parameters registries of
   the IETF, and is responsible for selecting appropriate operator(s)
   and related per-registry arrangements.  Especially when relationships
   among protocols call for it, many registries are operated by, or in
   conjunction with, other bodies.  Unless the IAB or IETF has concluded
   that special treatment is needed, the operator for registries is
   currently ICANN.
   
I don't think the last sentence is right. Is it correct to say "ICANN is
currently the operator for all registries, except for specific registries
where the IAB or IETF has concluded that special treatment is needed"?
The current text reads like ICANN as the operator is all or nothing.

In this text:

   We think the structures that sustain the protocol parameters
   registries function need to be strong enough that they can be offered
   independently by the Internet technical community, without the need
   for backing from external parties.  And we believe we largely are
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   there already, although the system can be strengthened further, and
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   continuous improvements are being made.
   
The indicated phrase seems very breezy. Perhaps "And we believe those
structures are strong enough now"?

In this text:

   >>> V.  NTIA Requirements
   >>>
   >>> Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal
   >>> must meet the following five requirements:
   >>>
   >>> "Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;"
   >>>

   IETF Response:

   Everyone is welcome to participate in IETF activities.  The policies
   and procedures are outlined in the documents we named above.  In-
   person attendance is not required for participation, and many people
   participate in email discussions that have never attended an IETF
   meeting.  An email account is the only requirement to participate.
   The IETF makes use of both formal and informal lines of communication
   to collaborate with other organizations within the multistakeholder
   ecosystem.
   
Is it worth explicitly pointing out that there is no cost of membership?

In this text:

   This proposal maintains the existing open framework that allows
   anyone to participate in the development of IETF standards, including
   the IANA protocol parameters registries policies.  Further, an
   implementer anywhere in the world has full access to the protocol
   specification published in the RFC series and the protocol parameters
   registries published at iana.org.  Those who require assignments in
   the IANA protocol registries will continue to be able to do so, as
                                                            ^^^^^
   specified by the existing policies for those registries.
   
I don't think that parses. Is this "will continue to be able to request
these assignments"?

In this text:

   IETF Response:

   The IESG established the IANAPLAN working group to develop this
   response.  Anyone was welcome to join the discussion and participate
              ^^^^^^
   in the development of this response.  An open mailing list
   ([email-masked]) was associated with the working group.  In
   addition, IETF's IANA practices have been discussed in the broader
   community, and all input is welcome.
   
I wonder if this text reflects how open the IETF is. It would be correct
to say "Anyone on earth with access to e-mail was able to join ...". That
might not be the right thing to say, but is the current text strong
enough?

In this text:

   Announcement of a public session on the transition:  http://
      www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg13028.html
      
I'm not sure "public" is the right adjective. Perhaps something like
"Announcement of a face-to-face session with provision for interactive
remote participation? I'm asking because the URL just says there's a
session at IETF 90, and that would make a random reader of this document
think travel, accommodations and meeting fees would be required.

I think discussion about the IAB Note is headed the right direction, but
that matters.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 08:29:50 +0100

Hi Spencer and thanks for your comments.  Please see below.

I have proposed a new abstract to Adrian in a previous message that
reads as follows:

        The U.S. NTIA has solicited a request from ICANN to propose
        how the NTIA should end its oversight of the IANA functions.
        After broad consultations, ICANN has in turn created the IANA
        Stewardship Transition Coordination Group.  That group
        solicited proposals for thre three major IANA functions:
        names, numbers, and protocol parameters.  This document
        contains the IETF response to that solicitation for protocol
        parameters.  It is meant to be included in an aggregate
        response to the NTIA alongside those for names and numbering
        resources that are being developed by their respective
        operational communities.
> dragged the text into the body of the document". Did I get it?

You're not the only one to have trouble with my whimsical comment. 
Proposed rewrite is as follows:

      We note that the following text was stated as footnote in the
> indented the same way, I'd definitely read the paragraph as part of the

Thank you.  I've corrected the indent.

> people who don't read RFCs for a living? I'm afraid the answer from the

For your information, this came up in a LC comment from Brian Carpenter,
and the reference is now to point to http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026.

>    regularly participate in IETF activities.

The working group did work on this text.  However, I believe you have
raised an important point that is not clearly covered elsewhere in the
document.  As such I propose replacing the current text with what you
have stated.
>       appropriate IP address allocation strategies.  As and when that

I agree that "If" is better than "As".

> RFC-INDEX" that previous instances included.

I propose to add "and its updates" after the reference.  We already
mention RFC-INDEX.
> The current text reads like ICANN as the operator is all or nothing.

Here I don't really see the difference.

In my response to Ted Lemon, I wrote the following:
> Both of the sentences you quote themselves are quoted from a statement
> made by the chair of the IAB on behalf of the IAB, that we developed in
> consultation with the IETF community.[1] If you don't mind I would
> rather leave them as a quote of the original text, although I agree that
> the wording could have been better chosen at the time.  However, perhaps
> a reference to that statement would be useful to clarify this point.

Is this sufficient?

> Is it worth explicitly pointing out that there is no cost of membership?

I would rather not go there.  While it is true, one must pay an ntrance
fee if one wants to attend the f2fs.

> I don't think that parses. Is this "will continue to be able to request

I agree that the language is strained there.

How about the following:

>         Those who require assignments in the IANA protocol
>         registries will continue to have their requests satisfied, as

> might not be the right thing to say, but is the current text strong

I suggest that this text remain as is.  "Anyone" is a pretty large set
of people.

> think travel, accommodations and meeting fees would be required.

I'd suggest that we retain the existing text, as there is adequate
explanation of IETF processes earlier in the document.

> I think discussion about the IAB Note is headed the right direction, but

Regards,

Eliot

[1] http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/4EQ4bnEfE5ZkrPAtSAO2OBZM03k

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 22:59:29 -0600

Top posting, because I'm only saying "thank you for working through my
last-second comments!"

Spencer
On Dec 17, 2014 1:29 AM, "Eliot Lear" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> [1]
> http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/4EQ4bnEfE5ZkrPAtSAO2OBZM03k
>
>
>