Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050704042050.041381c0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 04:28:43 +0200
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: NTIA Statement of Principles
In-Reply-To: <42C89794.3EF1@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050703164412.041fcb00@mail.jefsey.com>
	<42C832FB.4E58@xyzzy.claranet.de>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050704013531.04772090@mail.afrac.org>
	<42C89794.3EF1@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.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@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru