Re: FYI -- IAB statement on IANA RFI
my detailed notes below ... On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: At 18:27 08/03/2006, Carl Malamud wrote: It's been pointed out that the note to DoC was actually sent by the IAB and the IETF *Chair* not the IETF as whole. Obviously, the timescale of this RFI was too short for the IETF as a whole to debate a response. In fact, it was even too short for us to spot this nit. Or to run a spell checker? It would have been better to not answer instead of doing such a haphazard job. This was not an effective document either in terms of process or substance. Dear Carl, the problem is that IETF and IAB do not want to accept the real world. http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=10717 I strongly support this move by china. t is about time that IANA recognize the obvious - open up the root. This is a good start. China is quick to learn the technological trap they have fallen into. They need ICANN as much as ICANN needs them. It also shows a very interesting simularity to what happened at the Public-Root. There we had Turey as our partner - like the chinese - not the best of human rights partners but partners non the less brougt together through necessitty. And the real world is catching up. The USG is in a real world. Their, our world. What to do now? will they wake up to reality - what we will see is a compromise. but they chinese are ball breakers - and I think it's high time someone break some balls at ICANN. Go china go. - to ignore? possibly losing control on the IANA. - to adapt in creating an IETF server? possibly creating a mess for nothing if they do not sell? worse if they sell? - lto ead in reviewing the architecture towards a fully distributed network with concerted IANA, one a country? a language? NOT an easy choice. But a choice which has to be made. The PublicRoot structure is the ultimate choice framework which provides for shared operability. regards joe ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FYI -- IAB statement on IANA RFI
It's been pointed out that the note to DoC was actually sent by the IAB and the IETF *Chair* not the IETF as whole. Obviously, the timescale of this RFI was too short for the IETF as a whole to debate a response. In fact, it was even too short for us to spot this nit. Brian Leslie Daigle wrote: As you may have seen, the Department of Commerce has recently published a Request for Interest (RFI), for the whole IANA function: http://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOC/OS/OAM/Reference%2DNumber%2DDOCNTIARFI0001/SynopsisR.html While the RFI was not a surprise, the IETF was not consulted in any way about the technical parameter assignment portion of the IANA work. As noted in the message we just sent in reply to this RFI, this gives us some concern in terms of potential impact for IETF work. http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence/IANA-2006/IAB-RFI-Input.pdf The IAB will be working through this year with the IAOC to ensure the IETF continues to have a suitable technical parameter assignment function. Leslie, for the IAB. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FYI -- IAB statement on IANA RFI
It's been pointed out that the note to DoC was actually sent by the IAB and the IETF *Chair* not the IETF as whole. Obviously, the timescale of this RFI was too short for the IETF as a whole to debate a response. In fact, it was even too short for us to spot this nit. Or to run a spell checker? It would have been better to not answer instead of doing such a haphazard job. This was not an effective document either in terms of process or substance. Carl ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FYI -- IAB statement on IANA RFI
At 18:27 08/03/2006, Carl Malamud wrote: It's been pointed out that the note to DoC was actually sent by the IAB and the IETF *Chair* not the IETF as whole. Obviously, the timescale of this RFI was too short for the IETF as a whole to debate a response. In fact, it was even too short for us to spot this nit. Or to run a spell checker? It would have been better to not answer instead of doing such a haphazard job. This was not an effective document either in terms of process or substance. Dear Carl, the problem is that IETF and IAB do not want to accept the real world. http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=10717 And the real world is catching up. The USG is in a real world. Their, our world. What to do now? - to ignore? possibly losing control on the IANA. - to adapt in creating an IETF server? possibly creating a mess for nothing if they do not sell? worse if they sell? - lto ead in reviewing the architecture towards a fully distributed network with concerted IANA, one a country? a language? NOT an easy choice. But a choice which has to be made. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
FYI -- IAB statement on IANA RFI
As you may have seen, the Department of Commerce has recently published a Request for Interest (RFI), for the whole IANA function: http://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOC/OS/OAM/Reference%2DNumber%2DDOCNTIARFI0001/SynopsisR.html While the RFI was not a surprise, the IETF was not consulted in any way about the technical parameter assignment portion of the IANA work. As noted in the message we just sent in reply to this RFI, this gives us some concern in terms of potential impact for IETF work. http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence/IANA-2006/IAB-RFI-Input.pdf The IAB will be working through this year with the IAOC to ensure the IETF continues to have a suitable technical parameter assignment function. Leslie, for the IAB. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
