[rfc-i] Comprehensive review of draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02 - Protocol Parameter Registry Operator
sm at resistor.net
Tue Jul 12 11:24:14 PDT 2011
At 20:50 09-07-2011, John C Klensin wrote:
>(B.32) Section 5, IANA Considerations
>In practice, it doesn't make any difference who "facilitate[s]
>the establishment of the relationship between the RFC
>Production Center and IANA" because that relationship is
>working and doesn't need fixing much less "facilitating". But,
>if anything needs to be said here, the coordination of that
>relationship should lie with the IAB, since it has formal
>responsibility for both the RFC Editor and the IANA. Were any
>conflict to arise between the Production Center and the IANA
>that could not be resolved informally, resolving it would
>certainly fall to the IAB. By contrast, the IAOC, which is
>designated as doing the facilitation in that section of this
>document, does not appear to me to have any relationship with
>the IANA at all: there are no contracts, no legal arrangements,
>and no oversight. The IETF Trust does have a limited
>relationship with IANA, but the Trust is not mentioned in this
>document at all.
I am unfortunately unable to provide references to supplement some
parts of this message as the www.iab.org move to Wordpress broke the
Many protocols defined in RFCs make use of identifiers consisting of
constants and other well-known values. The IETF uses a registry
function to record these protocol values and their associated
semantic intent. Historically, this registry is referred to as the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
A proposal about defining IETF Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
as it applies to the IETF Standards Process was submitted in December
2002. The publication of the proposal through the IAB Stream in
April 2011 resulted in RFC 6220. For what it is worth, this is done
under contract but I prefer not to get into that.
In the text quoted above, John Klensin discussed about the
relationships between various bodies and IANA. I'll steal a few
words from him: "In practice, it doesn't make any difference". Where
it makes a difference is when the IAB takes a position on the IANA NOI.
The previous IAB was of the opinion that:
"The IAB has the responsibility to appoint an organization to
undertake the delegated functions of the Protocol Parameter Registry
Operator for each IETF protocol parameter."
If the current IAB would like to maintain that opinion, I suggest
that it uses "Protocol Parameter Registry Operator" instead of "IANA"
in some parts of draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02. The roles are
clearly defined in RFC 6220. I note that RFC 6220 states that:
"Any intellectual property rights of IETF protocol parameter
assignment information, including the registry and its contents, and
all registry publications, are to be held by the IETF Trust on behalf
of the IETF."
The following suggested changes should be viewed as work in progress
pending a stable version of the RFC Editor Model document:
In Section 2.3:
"4. Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds, IANA,
and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is needed;"
4. Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds, Protocol
Parameter Registry Operator, and/or stream-dependent contacts when
clarification is needed;
"9. Coordinating with IANA to perform protocol parameter registry
9. Coordinating with the Protocol Parameter Registry Operator;
"11. Establishing publication readiness of each document through
communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA and/or
stream-dependent contacts, and, if needed, with the RFC Series
11. Establishing publication readiness of each document through
communication with the authors, document shepherds, Protocol
Parameter Registry Operator and/or stream-dependent contacts,
and, if needed, with the RFC Series Editor;
I suggest removing the following sentence from Section 5:
"The IAOC will facilitate the establishment of the relationship
between the RFC Production Center and IANA."
More information about the rfc-interest