Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050625014553.0500f930@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 03:21:32 +0200
To: "Steve Silverman" <steves@shentel.net>,
	"Ralph Droms" <rdroms@cisco.com>, "IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <CIEELMKPOOAMCIAKANLBCEPCFAAA.steves@shentel.net>
References: <1119652896.5791.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<CIEELMKPOOAMCIAKANLBCEPCFAAA.steves@shentel.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: lroberts@packet.cc, IETF Announcement list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

At 01:11 25/06/2005, Steve Silverman wrote:
>At a recent meeting, Dr. Roberts said that this option had been
>approved as a recommendation by an ITU Study Group.  He didn't
>indicate which SG or what the rec. number would be.  He said he had an
>ISP that wanted to deploy this function.
>If all this is true, would it not be reasonable for IANA to assign a
>code to an ITU approved option to avoid incompatible codepoint use?
>
>If IANA doesn't support ITU work, this might be construed as a reason
>to move the IANA function to an ITU Study Group or another
>administrative body that might be neutral with respect to the various
>standards bodies.

Dear Brian Carpenter, Michelle Cotton, Leslie Daigle, Bill Fenner, Barbara 
Fuller, Ted Hardie, Sam Hartman, Scott Hollenbeck, Russ Housley, David 
Kessens, Allison Mankin, Dave Meyer, Jon Peterson, Joyce K. Reynolds, 
Barbara Roseman, Mark Townsley, Amy Vezza, Margaret Wasserman, Bert Wijnen, 
Alex Zinin,

What is the IANA?
- is it the 35 649 341 chars concatenation of the results of the RFC IANA 
considerations parts plus the names and numbers ICANN files?
- is it the to be urgently distributed common parameters and reference 
repository for the needs of the Global Internet Community?

Networking by essence is to share parameters. Is this some want to rule a 
IANA registrar in their business field? The days of centralised IANA (and 
power) are over: network development means that every relational space of 
exchanges needs a common clearing house for its networking. We urgently 
need to understand what it means in term of IANA policy, organisation, 
architecture. The IANA must be distributed and its policy totally reviewed. 
Consistence with ISO 11179 insured....

When the very founder of the ARPANET is refused to register a parameter 
(whatever it is, whatever the purpose, whatever the reason) what are the 
chances of one of the 800 millions common users who will also to register 
manythings.

Under the current urgent need to address the questions above, did you not 
see this is not even forcing an ITU alt-IANA, this is forcing 
balkanisation, pulverisation?

If an idea is good you will not block it in denying it a parameter 
registration.
If an idea is bad you will create it support in denying it. You will let it 
die in treating it equal.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf