Review of Protocol Parameters and Numbers Proposals for completeness
Hi, I have spent some time looking at the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals in parallel with the IANA Contract and specifically the ICANN Response to the RFP. The goal was to try to identify gaps or overlaps that the proposals did not take into account. Specifically, I looked at two areas: - The registries related to IP addresses and AS numbers - The IANA.ORG domain name I did add the summary of my review in my assessment of the Numbers Proposal where I did start with Wulf Ulrich excellent work (and that is why you see much text in my assessment that is exactly the same words as in his assessment). My assessment is in the dropbox and also attached to this email. Patrik
On 6.02.15 5:32 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
Hi,
I have spent some time looking at the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals in parallel with the IANA Contract and specifically the ICANN Response to the RFP. The goal was to try to identify gaps or overlaps that the proposals did not take into account.
Specifically, I looked at two areas:
- The registries related to IP addresses and AS numbers - The IANA.ORG domain name
I did add the summary of my review in my assessment of the Numbers Proposal where I did start with Wulf Ulrich excellent work (and that is why you see much text in my assessment that is exactly the same words as in his assessment).
My assessment is in the dropbox and also attached to this email.
Patrik
For the record: I concur with the assessment so far. Patrik's additional analysis is useful and correct. I am extremely confident that any remaining small gaps or overlaps between protocol parameters and numbers, should they exist, will not turn out to be critical. The record shows that protocol parameters and numbers are capable of resolving such issues in a timely manner. I strongly suggest that we congratulate the numbers community and particularly the CRISP team volunteers on a job well done. They have managed to do substantial work at an amazing pace without ever loosing touch with the community. I consider it extremely important that the numbers community hears the ICG appreciating their work and their achievement finish it according to our time-line. Daniel For completeness I repeat my earlier disclosure: As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Thanks for sharing this, Patrik. Under B.1, on page 6, you say "The Protocol Parameters proposal suggest transfer of the domain name to the IETF Trust.” This is not correct. The numbers proposal is the one that suggests this. Alissa On Feb 5, 2015, at 1:32 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
Hi,
I have spent some time looking at the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals in parallel with the IANA Contract and specifically the ICANN Response to the RFP. The goal was to try to identify gaps or overlaps that the proposals did not take into account.
Specifically, I looked at two areas:
- The registries related to IP addresses and AS numbers - The IANA.ORG domain name
I did add the summary of my review in my assessment of the Numbers Proposal where I did start with Wulf Ulrich excellent work (and that is why you see much text in my assessment that is exactly the same words as in his assessment).
My assessment is in the dropbox and also attached to this email.
Patrik
<numbers-proposal-assessment-paf.doc>_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Oh, yes, you are correct. I will update my review accordingly. IETF introduce the text about IANA.ORG with the following wording:
Over the course of the development of the document, several suggestions were raised that did not enjoy sufficient support to be included. Two general areas of suggestion that generated much discussion were
While the Numbers proposal say:
From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.
And continues:
The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names.
And then concludes:
It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition.
Let me go back and update things. This do not change by any means my conclusion. Patrik
On 6 feb 2015, at 07:13, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Patrik.
Under B.1, on page 6, you say "The Protocol Parameters proposal suggest transfer of the domain name to the IETF Trust.” This is not correct. The numbers proposal is the one that suggests this.
Alissa
On Feb 5, 2015, at 1:32 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
Hi,
I have spent some time looking at the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals in parallel with the IANA Contract and specifically the ICANN Response to the RFP. The goal was to try to identify gaps or overlaps that the proposals did not take into account.
Specifically, I looked at two areas:
- The registries related to IP addresses and AS numbers - The IANA.ORG domain name
I did add the summary of my review in my assessment of the Numbers Proposal where I did start with Wulf Ulrich excellent work (and that is why you see much text in my assessment that is exactly the same words as in his assessment).
My assessment is in the dropbox and also attached to this email.
Patrik
<numbers-proposal-assessment-paf.doc>_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I have updated my assessment, and produced both a new clean version and a redline from my original submission. Patrik
On 6 feb 2015, at 07:13, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Patrik.
Under B.1, on page 6, you say "The Protocol Parameters proposal suggest transfer of the domain name to the IETF Trust.” This is not correct. The numbers proposal is the one that suggests this.
Alissa
On Feb 5, 2015, at 1:32 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
Hi,
I have spent some time looking at the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals in parallel with the IANA Contract and specifically the ICANN Response to the RFP. The goal was to try to identify gaps or overlaps that the proposals did not take into account.
Specifically, I looked at two areas:
- The registries related to IP addresses and AS numbers - The IANA.ORG domain name
I did add the summary of my review in my assessment of the Numbers Proposal where I did start with Wulf Ulrich excellent work (and that is why you see much text in my assessment that is exactly the same words as in his assessment).
My assessment is in the dropbox and also attached to this email.
Patrik
<numbers-proposal-assessment-paf.doc>_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (3)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Patrik Fältström