Re: [Ltru] Re: NTIA Statement of Principles

[r&d afrac <rd at afrac.org>]

I am afraid you miss the point. There is _no_more_ IANA. The IANA you 
consider was a registry/document repository for the whole network. Due to 
the growth of the network the USA contracted to give it to the Global 
Intenet Community: RFC 2860 and the work of this WG (which is to define a 
IANA Registry) are based on that. This contract will not be continued.

RFC 2860 and this Draft must now consider what is their purpose: to support 
the Global community or to serve the USA through its national reference 
center and to deal with the constraints/advantages this may represent.
jfc





On 03:57 04/07/2005, Frank Ellermann said:
> r&d afrac wrote:
>
> > RFC 2860 bis is under general discussion with Brian Carpenter
> > discussing it and a Draft from John Klensin.
>
> Yes, I read the IETF general list, and I've John's draft in my
> "collection" <http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/>  It's not about
> finding a new hoster for the IANA, it's about the definition of
> "IESG approval".  Perfectly irrelevant for LTRU, it was always
> clear that there's no way to bypass the "language tag review"
> step in our procedure.  You can't send a registration request
> directly to the IESG - that's the problem they had with this
> obscure IPv6 hop-by-hop option, if I understood this correctly.
>
> > The real issue is now to know if we are going to have at IANA
> > level a contention similar to the "alt-roots" with USA,
> > China, Europe, etc. playing alt-IANA.
>
> For the moment IANA is what the IETF says it is.  And for the
> moment ns1.de.eu.orsn.net mirrors ICANN's servers, or at least
> that's what I think it does.
>
> > no need at this stage to add confusion with 7500 languages.
>
> I like the idea.  But it will be 3066ter, Peter can't register
> them manually one after the other.  3066ter will simply offer a
> bulk registry update, add ISO 639-3 to the registry maybe after
> filtering any dupes.  No confusion.
>
> > RFC 2860 de facto does not exist anymore.
>
> Fine, then let's delete it from the references.  The last time
> I proposed this you didn't like it.  Only an "informative" MoU,
> good riddance from our "normative" references.
>
> > Our job is to see how we can best support people.
>
> Reinventing ICANN isn't covered by our WG Charter, we're here
> to define a registry format, not the hoster of this registry.
> And as far as I'm concerned that job is finished.  Bye, Frank
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru