-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
01-02.diffs
1383 lines (1060 loc) · 48.4 KB
/
01-02.diffs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
*** draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01.txt 2014-10-16 17:44:42.000000000 +0200
--- draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.txt 2014-10-25 19:23:48.000000000 +0200
***************
*** 4,11 ****
IANAPLAN E. Lear, Ed.
Internet-Draft R. Housley, Ed.
! Intended status: Informational October 16, 2014
! Expires: April 19, 2015
Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals
--- 4,11 ----
IANAPLAN E. Lear, Ed.
Internet-Draft R. Housley, Ed.
! Intended status: Informational October 25, 2014
! Expires: April 28, 2015
Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals
***************
*** 14,24 ****
Abstract
! This document contains the a draft 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 names and addresses that will be submitted from their
respective operational communities. The IETF community is invited to
comment and propose changes to this document.
--- 14,24 ----
Abstract
! This document contains the a 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.
***************
*** 37,43 ****
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
! This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2015.
Copyright Notice
--- 37,43 ----
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
! This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2015.
Copyright Notice
***************
*** 53,59 ****
! Lear & Housley Expires April 19, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
--- 53,59 ----
! Lear & Housley Expires April 28, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
***************
*** 68,81 ****
2. The Formal RFP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
! 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
! 6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
! Appendix A. Changes since -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix B. The Charter of the IANA Stewardship Coordination
! Group (ICG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix C. IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
! Request for Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
! Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. IETF Introduction
--- 68,83 ----
2. The Formal RFP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
! 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
! 6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
! Appendix A. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
! A.1. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
! A.2. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix B. The Charter of the IANA Stewardship Coordination
! Group (ICG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix C. IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
! Request for Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
! Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. IETF Introduction
***************
*** 93,99 ****
While there are interactions between all of the IANA functions and
IETF standards, this document specifically addresses the protocol
! registries function. Section 1 (this section) contains an
introduction that is sourced solely within the IETF. Section 2
contains the questionnaire that was written by the ICG and a formal
response by the IETF. Because much of this memo is taken from a
--- 95,101 ----
While there are interactions between all of the IANA functions and
IETF standards, this document specifically addresses the protocol
! parameters registries function. Section 1 (this section) contains an
introduction that is sourced solely within the IETF. Section 2
contains the questionnaire that was written by the ICG and a formal
response by the IETF. Because much of this memo is taken from a
***************
*** 107,115 ****
!
!
! Lear & Housley Expires April 19, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
--- 109,115 ----
! Lear & Housley Expires April 28, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
***************
*** 165,178 ****
! Lear & Housley Expires April 19, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
! registry containing the parameter values and a pointer to
documentation of the associated semantic intent. The IETF uses the
! IANA protocol parameter registries to implement such registries.
>>>
>>> A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity.
--- 165,179 ----
! Lear & Housley Expires April 28, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
! registries containing the parameter values and a pointer to
documentation of the associated semantic intent. The IETF uses the
! IANA protocol parameters registries to store this information in a
! public location.
>>>
>>> A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity.
***************
*** 181,191 ****
IETF Response:
! The IANA protocol parameter registry operator maintains the protocol
! parameters registry for the IETF in accordance with all relevant IETF
! policies, in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding and
! assoicated supplemental agreements that include service level
! agreements (SLAs).
The IETF is a global voluntary standards organization whose goal is
to make the Internet work better [RFC3595]. IETF standards are
--- 182,193 ----
IETF Response:
! The IANA protocol parameters registries operator maintains the
! protocol parameters registries for the IETF in accordance with all
! relevant IETF policies, in accordance with the Memorandum of
! Understanding and associated supplemental agreements that include
! service level agreements (SLAs) established between the IETF and
! ICANN[RFC2860].
The IETF is a global voluntary standards organization whose goal is
to make the Internet work better [RFC3595]. IETF standards are
***************
*** 193,199 ****
standards that are used on the Internet today, including IP, TCP,
DNS, BGP, and HTTP, to name but a few.
! The IETF operates an open and transparent manner [RFC6852]. The
processes that govern the IETF are also published in the RFC series.
The Internet Standards Process is documented in [RFC2026]. That
document explains not only how standards are developed, but also how
--- 195,201 ----
standards that are used on the Internet today, including IP, TCP,
DNS, BGP, and HTTP, to name but a few.
! The IETF operates in an open and transparent manner [RFC6852]. The
processes that govern the IETF are also published in the RFC series.
The Internet Standards Process is documented in [RFC2026]. That
document explains not only how standards are developed, but also how
***************
*** 219,234 ****
!
!
! Lear & Housley Expires April 19, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
! The protocol parameter registries are the product of IETF work.
! Administration of the protocol parameter registries is the service
! that is provide to the IETF.
>>>
>>> A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your
--- 221,234 ----
! Lear & Housley Expires April 28, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
! The protocol parameters registries are the product of IETF work.
! Administration of the protocol parameters registries is the service
! that is provided to the IETF.
>>>
>>> A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your
***************
*** 241,255 ****
In this context, the IETF considers "overlap" to be where there is in
some way shared responsibility for a single registry across multiple
! organizations. This is the case with both names and numbers, as
! described in the paragraphs below. In all cases, the IETF engages
! directly with the appropriate organizations to ensure that each
! organization's policies are followed.
It is important to note that the IETF includes anyone who wishes to
! participate, including anyone from ICANN or the regional Internet
! registries (RIRs), and many people from those organizations regularly
! do.
o The IETF has specified a number of special use registries with
regard to domain names. These registries require coordination
--- 241,258 ----
In this context, the IETF considers "overlap" to be where there is in
some way shared responsibility for a single registry across multiple
! organizations. In this sense, there is no overlap between
! organizations because responsibility for each registry is carefully
! delineated. 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. This is the case with both
! names and numbers, as described in the paragraphs below. In all
! cases, the IETF engages directly with the appropriate organizations
! to ensure that each organization's policies are followed.
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.
o The IETF has specified a number of special use registries with
regard to domain names. These registries require coordination
***************
*** 257,264 ****
perform this coordination.[RFC6761]
o The IETF specifies the DNS protocol. From time to time there have
! been and will be updates to that protocol. We will continue to
! coordinate with ICANN regarding those changes.
o The IETF specifies minimum requirements for root servers. Should
those requirements change, we will inform ICANN.
--- 260,268 ----
perform this coordination.[RFC6761]
o The IETF specifies the DNS protocol. From time to time there have
! been and will be updates to that protocol. As we make changes we
! will broadly consult the operational community about the impact of
! those changes, as we have done in the past.
o The IETF specifies minimum requirements for root servers. Should
those requirements change, we will inform ICANN.
***************
*** 269,292 ****
happens, we will consult with the RIR community, as we have done
in the past.
- o The IETF has established registries with IANA for special IPv4 and
- IPv6 assignments. These are specified in [RFC6890]. The IETF
- coordinates such assignments with the RIRs.
-
! Lear & Housley Expires April 19, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
o IETF standards changes may have impact on operations of RIRs and
! service providers. A recent example is the expansion of the BGP
! community field from 16 to 32 bits.[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.
>>> II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements
--- 273,311 ----
happens, we will consult with the RIR community, as we have done
in the past.
! Lear & Housley Expires April 28, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
+ o The IETF is responsible for policy relating to the entire IP
+ address space and AS number space. Through IANA, the IETF
+ delegates unicast IP address and AS number ranges to the RIR
+ system[RFC7020],[RFC7249]. Special address allocation, such a
+ multicast and anycast addresses, often require coordination.
+ Another example of IP addresses that are not administered by the
+ RIR system is Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) [RFC4193], where local
+ networks employ a prefix that is not intended to be routed on the
+ public Internet. New special address allocations are added, from
+ time to time, related to the evolution of the standards. In all
+ cases, these special assignments are listed in the IANA
+ registries.
+
+ o The IETF maintains sub-registries for special IPv4 and IPv6
+ assignments. These are specified in xref target="RFC3307"/>,
+ [RFC5771], and [RFC6890]. The IETF coordinates such assignments
+ with the RIRs.
+
o 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.
>>> II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements
***************
*** 310,316 ****
>>>
! IETF Response: The protocol parameters registry.
>>>
>>> A description of how policy is developed and established and
--- 329,342 ----
>>>
! IETF Response: The protocol parameters registries.
!
!
!
! Lear & Housley Expires April 28, 2015 [Page 6]
!
! Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
!
>>>
>>> A description of how policy is developed and established and
***************
*** 320,326 ****
IETF Response:
! Policy for overall management of the registries is stated in RFCs in
[RFC6220] and [RFC5226]. The first of these documents explains the
model for how the registries are to be operated, how policy is set,
and how oversight takes place. RFC 5226 specifies the policies that
--- 346,352 ----
IETF Response:
! Policy for overall management of the registries is stated in
[RFC6220] and [RFC5226]. The first of these documents explains the
model for how the registries are to be operated, how policy is set,
and how oversight takes place. RFC 5226 specifies the policies that
***************
*** 330,347 ****
form of an Internet-Draft. Anyone may submit such a proposal. If
there is sufficient interest, the Internet Engineering Steering Group
may choose to create a working group or an Area Director may choose
-
-
-
- Lear & Housley Expires April 19, 2015 [Page 6]
-
- Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
-
-
to sponsor the draft. In either case, anyone may comment on the
proposal as it progresses. A proposal cannot be passed by the IESG
unless it enjoys sufficient community support as to indicate rough
! consensus [RFC7282] In each case, a "Last Call" is made so that
there is notice of any proposed change to a policy or process.
Anyone may comment during a Last Call.
--- 356,365 ----
form of an Internet-Draft. Anyone may submit such a proposal. If
there is sufficient interest, the Internet Engineering Steering Group
may choose to create a working group or an Area Director may choose
to sponsor the draft. In either case, anyone may comment on the
proposal as it progresses. A proposal cannot be passed by the IESG
unless it enjoys sufficient community support as to indicate rough
! consensus [RFC7282]. In each case, a "Last Call" is made so that
there is notice of any proposed change to a policy or process.
Anyone may comment during a Last Call.
***************
*** 357,365 ****
action, Section 6.5 of [RFC2026] specifies a multi-level conflict
resolution and appeals process that includes the responsible Area
Director, the IESG, and the IAB. Should appeals be upheld, an
! appropriate remedy is applied. In the case where an 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.
>>>
--- 375,383 ----
action, Section 6.5 of [RFC2026] specifies a multi-level conflict
resolution and appeals process that includes the responsible Area
Director, the IESG, and the IAB. Should appeals be upheld, an
! appropriate remedy is applied. 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.
>>>
***************
*** 368,373 ****
--- 386,399 ----
>>>
+
+
+
+ Lear & Housley Expires April 28, 2015 [Page 7]
+
+ Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
+
+
IETF Response: As mentioned above, [RFC2026] Section 6.5 specifies a
conflict resolution and appeals process. [RFC2418] specifies working
group procedures. Note that both of these documents have been
***************
*** 386,399 ****
>>> following as are applicable:
>>>
>>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
-
-
-
- Lear & Housley Expires April 19, 2015 [Page 7]
-
- Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
-
-
>>> affected.
>>>
--- 412,417 ----
***************
*** 407,413 ****
IETF Response: all policy sources relating to the protocol parameters
! registry have been specified in II.A.
>>>
>>> A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight
--- 425,431 ----
IETF Response: all policy sources relating to the protocol parameters
! registry are affected.
>>>
>>> A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight
***************
*** 424,429 ****
--- 442,455 ----
management of certain domains, including .ARPA [RFC3172], and general
architectural guidance to the broader community. The IAB must
approve the appointment of an organization to act as IANA on behalf
+
+
+
+ Lear & Housley Expires April 28, 2015 [Page 8]
+
+ Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
+
+
of the IETF. The IAB is also responsible for establishing liaison
relationships with other orgnaizations on behalf of the IETF. The
IAB's charter is to be found in [RFC2850].
***************
*** 435,441 ****
sent to the Internet Society Board of Trustees for confirmation. In
general, members serve for two years. The IAB selects its own chair.
! The IAB provides oversight of the protocol parameter 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
--- 461,467 ----
sent to the Internet Society Board of Trustees for confirmation. In
general, members serve for two years. The IAB selects its own chair.
! 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
***************
*** 443,455 ****
that special treatment is needed, the operator for registries is
currently ICANN.
-
-
- Lear & Housley Expires April 19, 2015 [Page 8]
-
- Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
-
-
>>>
>>> A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting
>>> scheme, auditing scheme, etc.). This should include a
--- 469,474 ----
***************
*** 473,482 ****
responsibility of the IETF Administrative Director (IAD). The IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) oversees the IAD. IAOC
members are appointed by the Internet Society Board of Trustees, the
! IAB, the IESG, and the NOMCOM [RFC4071]. The IAOC works with ICANN
! to establish annual IANA performance metrics and operational
! procedures, and the resulting document is adopted as an supplement to
! the MoU each year [MOUSUP].
To date there have been no unresolvable disputes or issues. In the
unlikely event that a more difficult situation should arise, the IAOC
--- 492,510 ----
responsibility of the IETF Administrative Director (IAD). The IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) oversees the IAD. IAOC
members are appointed by the Internet Society Board of Trustees, the
! IAB, the IESG, and the NOMCOM [RFC4071]. The IAOC works with the
! IANA functions operator to establish annual IANA performance metrics
! and operational procedures, and the resulting document is adopted as
! an supplement to the MoU each year [MOUSUP].
!
!
!
!
!
! Lear & Housley Expires April 28, 2015 [Page 9]
!
! Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
!
To date there have been no unresolvable disputes or issues. In the
unlikely event that a more difficult situation should arise, the IAOC
***************
*** 499,511 ****
>>>III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability
Arrangements
-
-
- Lear & Housley Expires April 19, 2015 [Page 9]
-
- Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
-
-
>>>
>>> This section should describe what changes your community is
>>> proposing to the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of
--- 527,532 ----
***************
*** 528,539 ****
IETF Response:
- No changes are required, as over the years since the creation of
- ICANN, the IETF, ICANN, and IAB have together created a system of
- agreements, policies, and oversight mechanisms that covers what is
- needed.
! First and foremost, IANA protocol parameter registry updates will
continue to function day-to-day, as they have been doing for the last
decade or more. The IETF community is quite satisfied with the
current arrangement with ICANN. RFC 2860 remains in force and has
--- 549,575 ----
IETF Response:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! Lear & Housley Expires April 28, 2015 [Page 10]
!
! Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
!
!
! No major changes are required, however, the IETF community has raised
! several concerns that should be addressed by supplemental agreements
! to the IETF-ICANN MoU, prior to a transition to post-NTIA regime.
! Over the years since the creation of ICANN, the IETF, ICANN, and IAB
! have together created a system of agreements, policies, and oversight
! mechanisms that covers what is needed.
!
! First and foremost, IANA protocol parameters registry updates will
continue to function day-to-day, as they have been doing for the last
decade or more. The IETF community is quite satisfied with the
current arrangement with ICANN. RFC 2860 remains in force and has
***************
*** 541,598 ****
appropriate service description and requirements.
To address issues raised by the IETF community relating to
! intellectual property rights; the IAOC is asked to engage the
appropriate parties, both inside and outside the IETF, to make clear
that data in the protocol parameters registries is in the public
domain.
! To address a desire by some members of the IETF community to have
! mechanisms that allow for additional dispute resolution between the
! IETF and the current IANA protocol registries operator, the IAOC is
! asked to conclude a supplemental agreement regarding jurisdiction and
! any necessary dispute resolution mechanisms that are mutually
! acceptable to the parties.
!
!
!
!
!
! Lear & Housley Expires April 19, 2015 [Page 10]
!
! Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
!
To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to transition
to another operator, IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental
agreement that-
! 1. captures provisions C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions
! contract between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract]; and
2. requires the transfer of any associated marks and identifiers to
! a subsequent operator.
Discussions during IETF 89 in London led to the following guiding
principles for IAB efforts that impact IANA protocol parameter
registries. These principles must be taken together; their order is
not significant.
! 1. The IETF protocol parameter registry function has been and
continues to be capably provided by the Internet technical community.
The strength and stability of the function and its foundation within
the Internet technical community are both important given how
critical protocol parameters are to the proper functioning of IETF
protocols.
! We think the structures that sustain the protocol parameter registry
! function needs 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.
! 2. The protocol parameter registry function requires openness,
transparency, and accountability.
Existing documentation of how the function is administered and
--- 577,634 ----
appropriate service description and requirements.
To address issues raised by the IETF community relating to
! intellectual property rights, the IAOC is asked to engage the
appropriate parties, both inside and outside the IETF, to make clear
that data in the protocol parameters registries is in the public
domain.
! To address a desire by the IETF community to have mechanisms that
! allow for additional dispute resolution between the IETF and the
! current IANA protocol registries operator, the IAOC is asked to
! conclude a supplemental agreement regarding jurisdiction and any
! necessary dispute resolution mechanisms that are mutually acceptable
! to the parties.
To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to transition
to another operator, IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental
agreement that-
! 1. maintaining the IANA functions operator's obligations established
! under C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract
! between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract]; and
2. requires the transfer of any associated marks and identifiers to
! subsequent operators.
Discussions during IETF 89 in London led to the following guiding
principles for IAB efforts that impact IANA protocol parameter
registries. These principles must be taken together; their order is
not significant.
! 1. The IETF protocol parameters registries function has been and
continues to be capably provided by the Internet technical community.
The strength and stability of the function and its foundation within
the Internet technical community are both important given how
+
+
+
+ Lear & Housley Expires April 28, 2015 [Page 11]
+
+ Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
+
+
critical protocol parameters are to the proper functioning of IETF
protocols.
! We think the structures that sustain the protocol parameters
! registries function needs 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.
! 2. The protocol parameters registries function requires openness,
transparency, and accountability.
Existing documentation of how the function is administered and
***************
*** 600,628 ****
clarity may be beneficial. It is important that the whole Internet
community can understand how the function works, and that the
processes for registering parameters and holding those who oversee
! the protocol parameter function accountable for following those
processes are understood by all interested parties. We are committed
to making improvements here if necessary.
! 3. Any contemplated changes to the protocol parameter registry
function should respect existing Internet community agreements.
! The protocol parameter registry is working well. The existing
! Memorandum of Understanding in RFC 2860 defines "the technical work
! to be carried out by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority on
!
!
!
! Lear & Housley Expires April 19, 2015 [Page 11]
!
! Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
!
!
! behalf of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet
! Research Task Force." Any modifications to the protocol parameter
! registry function should be made using the IETF process to update RFC
! 6220 and other relevant RFCs. Put quite simply: evolution, not
! revolution.
4. The Internet architecture requires and receives capable service
by Internet registries.
--- 636,656 ----
clarity may be beneficial. It is important that the whole Internet
community can understand how the function works, and that the
processes for registering parameters and holding those who oversee
! the protocol parameters function accountable for following those
processes are understood by all interested parties. We are committed
to making improvements here if necessary.
! 3. Any contemplated changes to the protocol parameters registries
function should respect existing Internet community agreements.
! The protocol parameters registries function is working well. The
! existing Memorandum of Understanding in RFC 2860 defines "the
! technical work to be carried out by the Internet Assigned Numbers
! Authority on behalf of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the
! Internet Research Task Force." Any modifications to the protocol
! parameters registries function should be made using the IETF process
! to update RFC 6220 and other relevant RFCs. Put quite simply:
! evolution, not revolution.
4. The Internet architecture requires and receives capable service
by Internet registries.
***************
*** 639,644 ****
--- 667,679 ----
of the Internet registries. We fully understand the need to work
together.
+
+
+ Lear & Housley Expires April 28, 2015 [Page 12]
+
+ Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
+
+
5. The IETF will continue management of the protocol parameter
registry function as an integral component of the IETF standards
process and the use of resulting protocols.
***************
*** 655,661 ****
6. The protocol parameters registries are provided as a public
service.
! Directions for the creation of protocol parameter registries and the
policies for subsequent additions and updates are specified in RFCs.
The protocol parameters registries are available to everyone, and
they are published in a form that allows their contents to be
--- 690,696 ----
6. The protocol parameters registries are provided as a public
service.
! Directions for the creation of protocol parameters registries and the
policies for subsequent additions and updates are specified in RFCs.
The protocol parameters registries are available to everyone, and
they are published in a form that allows their contents to be
***************
*** 667,679 ****
community as they work with ICANN to establish future IANA
performance metrics and operational procedures.
-
-
- Lear & Housley Expires April 19, 2015 [Page 12]
-
- Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
-
-
>>> IV Transition Implications
>>>
--- 702,707 ----
***************
*** 695,700 ****
--- 723,735 ----
>>>
+
+
+ Lear & Housley Expires April 28, 2015 [Page 13]
+
+ Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
+
+
IETF Response:
No structural changes are required. The principles listed above will
***************
*** 702,708 ****
ICANN to establish future IANA performance metrics and operational
procedures, as they have in the past.
! As no services are expected to change, no continuity issuees are
anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods
proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the
RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen
--- 737,743 ----
ICANN to establish future IANA performance metrics and operational
procedures, as they have in the past.
! As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are
anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods
proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the
RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen
***************
*** 722,735 ****
>>>
-
-
-
- Lear & Housley Expires April 19, 2015 [Page 13]
-
- Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
-
-
IETF Response:
Everyone is welcome to participate in IETF activities. The policies
--- 757,762 ----
***************
*** 751,756 ****
--- 778,791 ----
The DNS relies on some of the IETF protocol parameters registries.
As the current IANA functions operator, ICANN performs its task very
+
+
+
+ Lear & Housley Expires April 28, 2015 [Page 14]
+
+ Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
+
+
well, usually exceeding the service level agreement metrics.[METRICS]
Security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS is best
protected by maintaining the current service in its current form.
***************
*** 764,774 ****
IETF Response:
Implementers and their users from around the world make use of the
! IETF standards and the associated IANA protocol parameter registries.
! The current IANA protocol parameter registry system is meeting the
! needs of these global customers. This proposal continues to meet
! their needs by maintaining the existing processes that have served
! them well in the past.
>>>
--- 799,809 ----
IETF Response:
Implementers and their users from around the world make use of the
! IETF standards and the associated IANA protocol parameters
! registries. The current IANA protocol parameters registries system
! is meeting the needs of these global customers. This proposal
! continues to meet their needs by maintaining the existing processes
! that have served them well in the past.
>>>
***************
*** 779,804 ****
IETF Response:
-
-
- Lear & Housley Expires April 19, 2015 [Page 14]
-
- Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response October 2014
-
-
This proposal maintains the existing open framework that allows
anyone to participate in the development of IETF standards, including
! the IANA protocol parameter registry policies. Further, an
implementer anywhere in the world has full access to the protocol
! specification published in the RFC series and the protocol parameter
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.
- {We will have an open discussion, make changes based on that
- discussion, and then conduct a Last Call to confirm that there is
- rough consensus for the proposal.}