[rfc-i] [IAB] Comprehensive review of draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02 - Protocol Parameter Registry Operator

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Wed Jul 13 02:17:38 PDT 2011

On Jul 13, 2011, at 12:08 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> That's all very interesting, but the IAB Charter (which is a BCP, unlike
> RFC 6220) only charters to the IAB to appoint one IANA, which takes
> technical instructions from the IESG:
>  "The IAB must approve the appointment
>   of an organization to act as IANA on behalf of the IETF. The IANA
>   takes technical direction on IETF protocols from the IESG."
> RFC 6220 is written in more general language, but the IAB doesn't today have
> authority to create mini-IANAs.

Hehe, that now, is a completely different discussion. 

> That being so, I can't see why the present
> draft needs to use more complicated terminology than just saying "IANA".

Although I can see from where Subramanian is comming from, I agree with Brian that within this context the use of the IANA terminology is adequate.

As an aside, The term IANA is (IMHO) not unambiguous. Because it was distracting we removed the terminology discussion from RFC6220 but in this discussion I am reminded of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-iana-05#appendix-A

> ...
>> 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."
> Why? I certainly hope that the IAOC will continue to do this.

Yep, if only because in an IANA SLA and or a Production center contract there will need to be language that sets the parameters for efficient communication (turn-around, service levels) and the IAOC will need to take account the requirements of each when we are working on tools (like the data tracker).



Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list