Subject: Observations regarding IANA Parameter Registries response from IETF

From: Vint Cerf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 06:42:15 -0500

the IETF document says:

The IETF is a global organization that produces voluntary standards,
   whose goal is to make the Internet work better [RFC3595].  IETF
   standards are published in the RFC series.  The IETF is responsible
   for the key standards that are used on the Internet today, including
   IP, TCP, DNS, BGP, and HTTP, to name but a few.

Query: is HTTP maintained by IETF or by W3C? I see the note from Mark
Nottingham referencing HTTPbis WG and RFCs 7230-7235 so I assume this
WG must have collaborative involvement of W3C participants also?

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.

Query: Should any others be mentioned explicitly in addition to the RIRs?

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.

Query: should this say "consult and coordinate"?

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.

Query: one would have thought the ISPs and Operator Groups (e.g.
NANOG) would also have been involved?

In the case where someone claims that
   the procedures themselves are insufficient or inadequate in some way
   to address a circumstance, one may appeal an IAB decision to the
   Internet Society Board of Trustees.

Query: Is this still an operational practice?

Appendix A.  Changes

   NOTE: This section to be removed by RFC Editor at publication.

I assume any references to appendices will be revised to reflect the
elimination of Appendix A?

In appendix C we read:

8 September 2014

   Introduction

   Under the IANA1 Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)
   Charter,2 the ICG has four main tasks:

Query: some formatting problem has turned IANA <footnote 1> into IANAL
- "I am not a lawyer" !!

"Chater,2..." which also looks odd.

another small formatting error in Appendix C:

(ii) Assess the outputs of the three operational communities for
        compatibility and interoperability (iii) Assemble a complete
        proposal for the transition

   (iv) Information sharing and public communication

Query: presumably section (iii) should be set off with its own paragraph

Generally there appears to be something odd about the paragraph numbering
in Appendix C, with more than one section set off as "0. " followed by a
section numbered Roman Numeral I. Is this intentional?

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 13:55:25 +0100

Hi Vint,

Thanks for your comments.

On 12/1/14, 12:42 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> Query: is HTTP maintained by IETF or by W3C? I see the note from Mark Nottingham referencing HTTPbis WG and RFCs 7230-7235 so I assume this WG must have collaborative involvement of W3C participants also?

HTTP is maintained by the IETF.  The chair of the WG in question is also
the IETF liaison manager to the W3C, and their liaison manager does
participate in our meetings and mailing lists.

> Query: Should any others be mentioned explicitly in addition to the RIRs?

For this and another comment below, the logic for mentioning ICANN & the
RIRs is that they are the other legs of the IANA stool.
> Query: should this say "consult and coordinate"?

That looks like a good change, and propose to include it in the next
revision.

> Query: one would have thought the ISPs and Operator Groups (e.g. NANOG) would also have been involved?

See above.  Of course NOGs have a huge role to play.

> Query: Is this still an operational practice?

If by operational you mean that people appeal to the BoT, to the best of
my knowledge it hasn't happened.  But the avenue is available.

> Appendix A.  Changes

I'll take these as editorial.  Thanks for pointing them out.  Darn right
IANAL.  The documents contained in the appendices were copied verbatim,
as best as could be, given the formatting limitations of Internet-Drafts.

Eliot