Skip to main content
  • Suggested IETF 114 Sessions for Getting Familiar with New Topics

    This list of sessions at the IETF 114 meeting are likely to include discussions and new proposals that are accessible to a broad range of Internet technologists whether they are new to the IETF or long-time participants.

      19 Jul 2022
    • The value of in-person collaboration

      As the world slowly recovers from COVID-19, in-person meetings at IETF and other organizations are coming back.

      • Grant GrossIETF Blog Reporter
      15 Jul 2022
    • A New Model for the RFC Editor Function

      The new RFC Editor Model is intended to provide greater transparency, improved responsiveness to the needs of the community, and increased clarity regarding the roles and responsibilities of the groups and individuals involved.

      • Peter Saint-Andre
      30 Jun 2022
    • IETF updates HTTP specifications, publishes HTTP/3

      The IETF has been busy working on updates to the specifications that make up HTTP, one of the most widely used protocols on the Internet, and documenting them in several RFCs published this month.

      • Grant GrossIETF Blog Reporter
      24 Jun 2022
    • Finalizing the IETF tools transition

      The final stage of transitioning services from tools.ietf.org will take place over the next few weeks. New services are in place, and some older services will disappear. Several measures are planned to ensure these final steps proceed smoothly.

      • Robert SparksIETF Tools Project Manager
      17 Jun 2022

    Filter by topic and date

    Filter by topic and date

    Plan for IANA

    • Jari ArkkoIETF Chair

    25 Jul 2014

    On Thursday morning of the IETF 90 meeting, we had a Birds of a Feather (BoF) session called IANAPLAN: Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition.

    Last March, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced a plan “to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.”  The NTIA’s plan is to do this in conjunction with the expiry of its contract with ICANN in September of 2015.

    NTIA asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene various stake-holders, including the IETF, to develop a proposal for how to complete the transition.  ICANN did that, and various organizations appointed members of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).  The IAB appointed two (Russ Housley and Lynn St. Amour), and the IETF appointed two (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper).

    Given those activities going on outside the IETF, the IESG concluded that it needed to know what the IETF community thinks.  The IAB has a program for IANA evolution, but the IAB isn’t tasked with representing IETF consensus.  The goal of the BoF was to understand whether an IETF working group is needed to respond to the NTIA’s request and to work on the overall questions related to the IANA transition.  To me, at least, the BoF was successful in learning what we needed to know.

    There were three clear messages from the BoF.  The first, clarion message was that we have an existing, working, well-functioning system, and we should take extreme care to avoid changing it, while documenting how it satisfies requirements from the NTIA. It appears that this was a value already shared, but it was good to have it confirmed.

    The second message was that, because there are changes to the overarching framework in which our existing system fits, we need to understand how those changes might affect us by accident.  We need to have a complete analysis of that, and ensure that anything that could affect us is addressed.  That way, we can avoid unwanted changes to our smoothly-functioning existing system.

    The final message was that, given the very short time we have, it would be best if the IAB’s IANA evolution program undertook most of the work.  At the same time, we need a newly-created working group to review that work and achieve (and demonstrate) consensus.

    What is particularly heartening about this is that the apparent strong consensus in the BoF is itself a clear example of the existing IETF procedures working.  There is a question — in this case, a policy question, and not a protocol one — that needs a decision, and the community comes together and makes a decision based on both rough consensus (the agreement displayed in the room) and running code (the actually functioning procedures we have today). This gives us the opportunity both to state how we wish to proceed, and show how well that works in practice.


    Share this page