Subject: Re: IAB comments on Green Paper

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:32:48 -0700 (MST)

> From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>

> ...
> We (the IETF/IESG/IAB) have two choices
>
>  - leave the assignment of protocol numbers with the IANAng,
>    get to choose some board members, and have significant influence;

Translation:  deliver protocol number assignment to a mechanism that
   acts the same as the current .com domain assignment mechanism,
   and have protocol number assignment work exactly as .com domain
   assignment works today. 

   Oh, goody--imagine the trademark arguments as disaffected commercial
   organizations do with protocol numbers as they do with domain names.
   Oh, joy!--a yearly registration fee including a 30% tax on all
   protocol numbers.

>  - do the assignment of protocol numbers ourselves, not get to
>    choose any board members of IANAng, and have no influence.

Translation: status quo.

> Pick one. Ira doesn't care which; he told me that personally
> a couple of weeks ago.

yeah, right.

Those who cannot learn from history ...

Vernon Schryver,  [email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 11:05:56 +0000

Vernon Schryver wrote:
...
> >    choose any board members of IANAng, and have no influence.

No it isn't. Today the IANA and the IP address registries
listen to the IETF about address allocation policy
(remember CIDRD?). We would lose that.

Think carefully about the IANAlite proposal that Jim Dixon
outlined.

  Brian