IETF
ianaplan
ianaplan@jabber.ietf.org
Tuesday, November 11, 2014< ^ >
Dan York has set the subject to: IANAPLAN at IETF91
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

GMT+0
[00:00:14] <Andy> IAOC negotiates the registries are in public domain
[00:00:37] <Andy> hi level requirement is the IETF must have a staple place to find protocol parameters
[00:00:57] <Andy> the implementation is different from right now vs when changes are needed
[00:01:26] <Andy> another method for stable refs is to do it in alternatives now
[00:01:57] <Andy> fine with hi level reqs in doc
[00:02:14] <Ted_Hardie> I don't think that is the requirement:  there is a service which is known to the community, the data at which is known good.  Stable referent is part of a pathway to that, but not the only pathway.
[00:02:21] <Andy> barry: channel John K
[00:03:06] <Andy> Barry: channeling Martin and Dave
[00:03:19] <Andy> Barry: channeling Stephen Farrel
[00:03:30] ctg1701 joins the room
[00:03:34] <Andy> Rus Mundy: speaking as individual
[00:04:10] <Andy> personal view that a merged proposal is wrong
[00:04:11] <Andy> there should be 3 or 4
[00:04:36] <Andy> and one cover letter from the ICG noting overlaps
[00:04:57] <Andrew Sullivan> I think this means Russ is saying that NTIA gets to sort it out
[00:05:16] <Andy> IETF should look at SSAC 68
[00:05:49] <Andy> reasonable for the IETF to say no-costs going forward and IP cannot be claimed by ICANN
[00:06:42] Sean Turner joins the room
[00:06:43] <Andy> Jon P: some burden of reconciliation will fall to the ICG
[00:06:45] <Martin Duerst> Question: Does "IP cannot be claimed" include IP to IANA/iana.org? That would be good to maintain across the transition.
[00:07:01] Sean Turner leaves the room
[00:07:12] <Andy> concerned that with all things up for grabs we loose since of our mission
[00:08:16] <Andy> Russ: ICG has said conflicts will be sent back to respective communities
[00:08:48] Tony Hansen leaves the room
[00:09:15] Lars leaves the room: Disconnected: session closed
[00:09:16] <Andy> Jon: fear our process may impede us by being to strict with IANA
[00:09:59] <Andy> Richard Barnes: stability low on list of priorities
[00:10:09] JoeHallCDT leaves the room
[00:10:18] <Phill > The issue isn't hat is, it is what things appear to be
[00:10:35] <Phill > If the IETF /IANA appears to be a ring of power then it is as dangerous as one
[00:10:54] <Andy> if you take the NTIA out of the machine and everything keeps running, that is desirable
[00:11:01] <Phill > Its the idiot diplomats who think that it is a ring of power that are the problem
[00:11:11] <Dave Crocker> MIC:  IANA is a critical infrastructure operations.  What's just been said is that its stability is a bad thing.  That's quite an usual view of responsible operations.
[00:11:22] <Andy> Randy Bush: we are responsible for the Internet
[00:11:44] <Andy> we are dealing with one of the least transparent and accountable in our domain: ICANN
[00:11:45] JoeHallCDT joins the room
[00:11:48] <Barry Leiba> dave: long q, but I'm in it
[00:11:52] <Andy> our last chance to get transparency.
[00:12:13] <Dave Crocker> tnx, again.  and you are welcome.  i assume that you'd otherwise not be getting all this exercise.
[00:12:17] <Andy> Marc: closing the lines
[00:12:34] <Barry Leiba> sitting on tush, I would be
[00:12:45] <Andy> Andrew Sullivan: view is that the problem being solved is a one time transition
[00:13:10] <Andy> need to guard against future issues
[00:13:13] Tony Hansen joins the room
[00:13:18] <Andy> what benefit from asking about those futures
[00:13:53] <Andy> do not need to worry about the operator goes berserk
[00:14:33] <Dave Crocker> Odd.  I don't recall hearing anyone today say anything like what Andrew S is asserting.
[00:14:45] rbarnes joins the room
[00:14:53] <Stephen Farrell> @dave: some of it's been on the list
[00:14:58] <Andy> Cullen: need the ability to control our numbers
[00:15:07] <Andy> fixing domain name is not must have
[00:15:10] Ned Freed leaves the room
[00:15:11] <Phill > If you plan for what happens when your lawyer cheats you, thats the only way to make sure he does not
[00:15:31] Ned Freed joins the room
[00:15:39] <Barry Leiba> Dave, you were responding to what Randy said, right?
[00:15:56] <Phill > Threaten to change to a different domain and we will get it
[00:16:21] <Andy> Alissa: draft says IAOC has been asked to engage parties
[00:16:35] <Andy> appears there because we don’t want it to be the IETF
[00:16:49] <Andrew Sullivan> @Dave Crocker: the assertion that we need to be in charge of the domain name or the TM boils down to a claim that we have to solve any possible risk.
[00:16:57] <Dave Crocker> Barry - I think it was Peterson who said that he doesn't want 'stability', which he equated to ossification.
[00:17:00] <Andy> the idea is that it would be nice if a party with ownership of the registries says they don’t have ownership
[00:17:03] <Barry Leiba> ok
[00:17:07] russ joins the room
[00:17:24] <Andrew Sullivan> No party has ownership of the contents of the registries, except maybe the USG
[00:17:27] <JoeHallCDT> @Phill: white font on white background in IRC means some of us can't read you
[00:17:29] <Andy> on nice to haves, the consumer is NTIA. what are they suppose to do with them?
[00:17:31] <Stephen Farrell> @dave: Richard B oo, another unstable chap:-)
[00:17:32] <Dave Crocker> Andrew s. - ack.  
[00:17:39] <Stephen Farrell> s/oo/too
[00:18:07] <Andrew Sullivan> ICANN does in fact have control over iana.org and has ownership of a trademark on IANA
[00:18:27] <Dave Crocker> @stephen.  huh?
[00:18:34] <Andy> ICG expectation is that if there are conflicts that make the system dysfunctional, that is when conflicts are sent back to the communities
[00:18:36] <Andrew Sullivan> ICANN has already said that it will cheerfully recommend that the registries contents be declared to be in the PD
[00:18:53] <Stephen Farrell> @dave:  both richard and jon dislike stability as a goal
[00:19:16] <Andy> Eliot: .arpa zone
[00:19:24] <Phill > Andrew, that is something that should be brought up with USG then.
[00:19:33] hildjj leaves the room
[00:19:33] <Dave Crocker> @stephen.  ack.  given's the business jon's company is in, i thought his statements particularly surprising.
[00:19:39] <Phill > USG no like contractors taking out trademakrs on their property
[00:19:48] <Andy> Eliot and Alissa discussing .arpa proposed text
[00:20:39] david perkins leaves the room
[00:20:51] <Stephen Farrell> its a list of numbers on at least 2 web sites
[00:20:54] <Andrew Sullivan> I have no idea whether USG has feelings about ICANN having a trademark on IANA, and I cannot see any reason to care about it.  The existing agreements already say that anything related to this will be transferred to a subsequent operator
[00:21:14] <Andy> Eric: don’t confuse the important things IANA does with the trivial ones
[00:21:14] <russ> Correcting one detail of my comments I made at the mike is that the NTIA/ICANN current contract says that ICANN can recover costs - any charges needed to recover costs need to be approved by the contract authority
[00:21:16] <Andrew Sullivan> the _only case_ that is solved by us insisting on control of this stuff is the one where we separate from the rest of IANA
[00:21:26] <Stephen Farrell> @ekr: but making the trivial important is politics isn't it?
[00:21:31] <Dan York> Andrei Robachevsky at mic
[00:21:35] <Andy> Andrei: document status quo
[00:21:55] <Phill > Lets reset here. The party wanting the change here is ICANN. This is all for the benefit of ICANN. If ICANN does not want IETF to throw a dirty great big spanner in this works then they had better give us the IANA trademark, IANA.org and a great deal more.
[00:22:06] <Andy> need to do legal diff on the MOU and changing conditions
[00:22:41] <Stephen Farrell> diff for IETF == null
[00:22:42] <Andy> Barry: channel Dave Crocker
[00:22:42] <Andrew Sullivan> @Phill We don't want this change?
[00:22:57] <Phill > Nope
[00:23:03] <Phill > Could not care less
[00:23:21] <Andy> Marc: received AD review, will discuss now
[00:23:25] <Phill > All I want is the IETF out of the cross hairs of the ICANN versus SCO battle
[00:23:26] Meetecho leaves the room
[00:23:35] Ned Freed leaves the room
[00:23:44] <Phill > Thats Shanghai cooperation organization, not the other one
[00:23:48] <Stephen Farrell> SCO? Didn't Scotland vote against?
[00:23:57] <Andrew Sullivan> So having nothing that we care about hitched to that wagon is surely a way to help our position?
[00:24:01] resnick cringes each time Marc says there are going to be some "consensus calls".
[00:24:18] Ned Freed joins the room
[00:24:26] <Andy> Eliot: reading email from Jari
[00:24:28] <Stephen Farrell> @pete: that wasn't an audible cringe from here:-)
[00:24:29] <Phill > Steve, its a treaty between Russia and china mainly with Syria, Iran and other shits of the first water.
[00:24:41] <marc.blanchet.qc> sorry Pete for no using the right words…
[00:24:43] Jon joins the room
[00:25:01] <Andy> The IETF is a global organization that produces standards
[00:25:09] <Phill > One treaty calls on them to oppose use of information infrastructures to oppress other nations.
[00:25:19] <Phill > I can send you a copy
[00:25:26] <Andy> discussion about capture, text about what we do about it
[00:25:44] <Stephen Farrell> @phb: sure, but reading treaties isn't something I do that often
[00:25:58] <Jon> Dave - stability in this context I heard to be permanent and lasting in a way it found threatening
[00:26:02] <resnick> @Marc: So long as you don't end up asking questions where there can be a few people objecting and then have no discussion as to why they object, I'm fine.
[00:26:03] <Stephen Farrell> though the outer space treaty is cool
[00:26:03] wood leaves the room
[00:26:14] <Jon> It would be okay if it you know worked and was available
[00:26:19] wood joins the room
[00:26:20] <Andy> separation of roles and mechanisms to protect us in case problems arise. but how do you do that?
[00:26:42] <Andy> Jari: how is termination clause
[00:27:58] <Cullen Jennings> I just went to register schmiana.org but someone got it 6 minutes ago. Love to know who . Fess up
[00:28:04] Glenn Kowack leaves the room
[00:28:14] <Jon> Heh
[00:28:32] <Stephen Farrell> icann probably
[00:28:33] <Andy> Eliot: accept text regarding audits
[00:29:14] Ted_Hardie leaves the room
[00:29:33] <Andy> Eliot: one last proposed edit from Russ
[00:29:48] Paolo saviano joins the room
[00:29:54] <Alissa Cooper> shmiana.org is available
[00:30:28] <Andy> Russ: if either ICANN or IETF is upset with each other, clause that allows us to terminate
[00:30:38] <Andy> clause for other disputes that is much less drastic
[00:30:47] <Dave Crocker> @jon, unfortunately I couldn't link your concern about osfficiation with any of the suggestions for the agreement.
[00:30:56] <Andy> that says IAB decides.
[00:31:12] <Andrew Sullivan> Surely there's an opportunity for someone to claim that schmiana.org and shmiana.org are confusingly similar and crank the entire confusing (in both senses) similarity mechanism into motion.
[00:31:24] <Phill > Look folk, this is standard stuff in business, either you negotiatie this type of agreement properly in advance with get out clauses you never use or you find yourself needing them
[00:31:32] <Stephen Farrell> schmiana.com is also free, may as well make a few bob eh
[00:32:17] <Andy> Jari: stick with text
[00:32:19] <Phill > ICANN wants the REALLY BAD. So they want us to help'em
[00:32:29] <Phill > I want iana.org and another thousand minions
[00:32:46] <Phill > with fart guns
[00:32:49] <Andy> Eliot: discussing jurisdiction will end up in lengthy discussion
[00:32:52] <rbarnes > Phill: ask the secretariat if they have any left over minions from last night
[00:33:07] <Andy> Brian Carpenter: we will do well with avoiding jurisdiction
[00:33:09] Glenn Kowack joins the room
[00:33:21] <Stephen Farrell> +1 to brian C.
[00:33:22] Meetecho joins the room
[00:33:39] <Phill > I seem to remember suing ICANN
[00:33:49] <Jon> Dave - the suggestion was just that we not die on the hill of annexing IANA.org preemptively
[00:33:50] <Phill > And they were so much less of assholes after
[00:34:31] <Andy> Marc: no comment at the mic about the changes on slide
[00:34:33] <Phill > Before we sued them, the only thing they thought about was avoiding lawsuits form the IPR crowd
[00:34:42] <Andy> humm of agreement with changes
[00:34:58] <Andy> Alissa: wants clarification on .arpa text
[00:35:04] <Andy> Marc: not in this
[00:35:12] <Stephen Farrell> list ain't displaying in meetecho for me
[00:35:15] <resnick> I wish he would just ask for disagreement.
[00:35:20] <resnick> But whatever.
[00:35:21] <Martin Duerst> +humm
[00:35:22] <Andy> humm for agreement with changes we think agree on
[00:35:22] <Andrew Sullivan> not all changes.  Just the ones "I think we agree on".  Slide 3 or something like that.  Add factual statement and so on
[00:35:28] <Andy> hum for disagree
[00:35:28] <Stephen Farrell> yeah those are ok
[00:35:33] <Andy> agreement hum carries
[00:35:48] <Andy> Marc seeking comment on those that disagree
[00:35:58] <John Klensin> No competent consensus when it is impossible to see the text that is being referred to remotely.
[00:36:02] <resnick> Good. Like that outcome.
[00:36:14] <resnick> (Not that disagreement, but that someone stood up.)
[00:36:19] <Andy> Peter Koch: not happy with special use domain names
[00:36:23] <Stephen Farrell> I was ok with all the "not controversial" stuff
[00:36:27] <Andrew Sullivan> John: I _think_ it's slide 3.  It's the one with bullets
[00:36:35] <Andrew Sullivan> starting with Add factual statement about how we use iana.org
[00:36:54] <John Klensin> Taking it to the list is the right answer.
[00:37:07] <Barry Leiba> The right question is "Will anyone who disagrees with this set of resolutions please come to the mic and tell us why."  No um needed.
[00:37:11] <Andrew Sullivan> I think he's trying to get sense of the room
[00:37:27] <Andy> Marc: 2 additional topics that need more discussion. mention .arpa
[00:37:31] <Stephen Farrell> display is fine now (for a second;-)
[00:37:36] <Andy> no comment on .arpa
[00:37:45] <Andrew Sullivan> People keep unplugging laptops
[00:37:52] <Andrew Sullivan> hence the display problems, I think
[00:37:55] <resnick> @ajs: Better to get the objections out of the way first. Then make sure everybody's heads not our noses hum or whatever.
[00:37:58] <Andy> (they are trying to display the text)
[00:38:07] <Martin Duerst> John, I think it's slides 4 to 10 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-ianaplan-1.pdf; slide 3 is the overview.
[00:38:08] <resnick> s/not/nod
[00:38:26] <Andrew Sullivan> Pete, I get the objection
[00:38:26] <Andy> Eliot is displaying bullet 3 on .arpa
[00:38:37] <Andy> Alissa: different than what we are talking about earlier
[00:38:49] <Andy> section now says no changes are needed
[00:39:13] <Stephen Farrell> slide I'm looking at doesn't say that sadly
[00:39:24] <Stephen Farrell> could be sync/timing but confusing
[00:39:30] <Andy> Eliot: is .arpa a protocol parameter registry
[00:39:42] <Andy> Alissa: then we need to get more specific. don’t think that is necessary
[00:39:43] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[00:40:00] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[00:40:15] <Andy> Olaf: .arpa is mentioned separately from protocol parameters in contract
[00:40:28] Martin Duerst leaves the room
[00:40:32] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[00:40:48] <Andy> Alissa: disagree that .arpa needs to be in list of contingencies
[00:40:57] <Andy> Eliot: take off line to get a proposal
[00:41:00] <Andy> ?
[00:41:01] Martin Duerst joins the room
[00:41:14] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[00:41:47] Niels ten Oever joins the room
[00:41:53] <Andy> Andrew Sullivan: this is another one of the things the current IANA operator does for us, but does not need to be treated specially
[00:42:18] <Andy> Eliot: if it is part of the protocol parameter registry, then we list it as such
[00:42:26] Ted_Hardie joins the room
[00:42:26] <Andy> Phl Halam-Baker: no, more complicated
[00:42:35] <Andy> because it holds reverse DNS
[00:42:46] Niels ten Oever leaves the room
[00:42:49] rbarnes leaves the room
[00:43:23] <Andy> be unreasonable in the negotiations
[00:43:33] rbarnes joins the room
[00:43:38] <Andy> Andrew Sullivan: .arpa does not include reverse
[00:43:50] <Andy> just another protocol parameter
[00:43:53] <Stephen Farrell> @PHB: we should not be unreasonable, no matter how nice the soundbite
[00:43:54] Phill leaves the room
[00:44:07] Karen O'Donoghue leaves the room
[00:44:17] <Andy> John Curran: respect to in-addr.arpa ... technical task that the IAB asks ICANN to do
[00:44:22] rbarnes leaves the room
[00:44:42] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[00:44:56] <Andy> Brian Dickson: can we hold ICANN to task?
[00:45:03] <Stephen Farrell> interesting that NTIA is only mentioned about every 15 minutes - shows how little they matter here IMO
[00:45:07] <Andy> are there ways to exert more control over ICANN
[00:45:08] <Andy> ?
[00:45:50] <russ> +1 Stephen
[00:45:59] <Andy> ask NTIA to give us control over ICANN
[00:46:06] <Stephen Farrell> We should not ask for control over anything
[00:46:06] <Andy> Jari: outside the scope
[00:46:15] <Dave Crocker> MIC:  Brian's concern about negotiating leverage is exactly the reason that attending to eventualities in this current discussion is so important.  NTIA still has leverage to get the points into the agreement.  Later they won't.
[00:46:29] <Barry Leiba> Dave, I think the line is close.
[00:46:30] <Andy> Marc: .arpa new text as protocol parameter registry
[00:46:31] <Barry Leiba> closed
[00:46:39] <spamvictim> ..darn
[00:46:48] <Andy> Leslie: iana.org <http://iana.org>
[00:46:48] <spamvictim> I wanted to point out that .ARPA is operational.
[00:46:53] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[00:46:53] Lars joins the room
[00:47:06] <spamvictim> if the protocol registrstries drop off line for a minute, so what
[00:47:09] <John Klensin> Sigh.  I wanted to stay out of this, but, having worked out the post-ICANN-takeover agreement after some ICANN staff claimed they any action by the IAB/IETF about ARPA was a _request_ that they could turn down...   ARPA isn't just another protocol parameter registry, but it is is under IAB administrative authority.  The only potential issue here is whether NTIA authority to make definitive decisions like that discappears when NTIA drops out.  It had better not, because a number of move sensitive issues rest on the same foundation.
[00:47:12] Phill joins the room
[00:47:13] <spamvictim> if the .ARPA name servers do, ...
[00:47:26] <Andy> iana.org <http://iana.org> marks, etc... push back on mentioning iana.org <http://iana.org> in this doc
[00:47:43] <Andrew Sullivan> So, John, are you suggesting that additional text is needed _for these purpises_?
[00:47:53] <Phill > Stephen, don't negotiate before you negotiate
[00:47:54] <spamvictim> I dunno. Is there a SLA?
[00:48:01] <Andrew Sullivan> That is, does the distinction matter for the purposes of this transition?
[00:48:05] <Andy> in this section to reframe to keep expectation about IPR
[00:48:18] <Andy> keep operator obligations established
[00:48:26] <Phill > Folk here were deciding on what was a fiar outcome and using that as their opening bid
[00:48:29] <Andy> #3 drops out altogether
[00:48:30] <Andrew Sullivan> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
;arpa.                IN    NS
;; ANSWER SECTION:
arpa.            518400    IN    NS    i.root-servers.net.
arpa.            518400    IN    NS    e.root-servers.net.
arpa.            518400    IN    NS    a.root-servers.net.
arpa.            518400    IN    NS    h.root-servers.net.
arpa.            518400    IN    NS    m.root-servers.net.
arpa.            518400    IN    NS    k.root-servers.net.
arpa.            518400    IN    NS    f.root-servers.net.
arpa.            518400    IN    NS    d.root-servers.net.
arpa.            518400    IN    NS    l.root-servers.net.
arpa.            518400    IN    NS    g.root-servers.net.
arpa.            518400    IN    NS    c.root-servers.net.
arpa.            518400    IN    NS    b.root-servers.net.
[00:48:41] <Stephen Farrell> @phb: I'm fine, nobody would ask me to negotiate:-)
[00:48:42] <Phill > I'll be reasonable if the other side will
[00:48:42] <John Klensin> @spamviction: yep.  One of the things IANA (and we) have tried to insist on since before ICANN and NTIA came into the picture is that the protocol registries are not live, real-time-retrieval databases.  That is part of what makes ARPA. different.
[00:48:45] <Andy> (she is referring to the three bulltet points)
[00:48:46] <Andrew Sullivan> If the arpa nameservers drop off the net, we have bigger problems than the arpa zone
[00:49:09] <resnick> @john: What is the difference between a protocol parameter registry and something under IAB administrative authority?
[00:49:10] <John Klensin> @andrew: indeed.
[00:49:22] <spamvictim> Is there a promise that .ARPA will be served by the roots? I honestly don't know.
[00:49:27] <Andy> Ted Hardie: asking clarifying q of #1
[00:49:35] <resnick> (That is, what's the effective difference?)
[00:49:42] <Phill > On the reverse DNS thing, the tex on the board said nothing about the reverse DNS
[00:49:54] <Andy> is there more than this to say?
[00:49:57] <Phill > Which makes it defective as a basis for negotiation
[00:50:06] <Andy> Leslie: additional text to intro para
[00:50:12] <Phill > What people think is obvious and agreed rarely is
[00:50:13] <Andrew Sullivan> @Phill: because you are conflating the operation of a zone underneath the TLD with the TLD itself
[00:50:19] <Andy> Jon: let’s not wordsmith here
[00:50:35] Lars leaves the room: Disconnected: session closed
[00:50:44] <Andy> Leslie: happy to take it to the list, but need the people from this room to be there too
[00:50:46] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[00:50:48] <Stephen Farrell> Leslie's point is a fair one
[00:50:51] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[00:50:58] <Andy> Ted: take hum on removing IOAC bit
[00:51:01] <Andy> ?
[00:51:03] <Andy> Leslie: ok
[00:51:12] <Andy> taking hum on removing IAOC phrase
[00:51:18] <Andy> please hum in favor
[00:51:20] <Andy> hum against
[00:51:21] <Stephen Farrell> +1 to dropping IAOC bit
[00:51:25] <Andy> favor hum caries.
[00:51:34] Peter Koch leaves the room
[00:51:38] <John Klensin> @pete: First, this may be a nit, but the protocol parameter registries are until IESG authority while ARPA is under IAB authority.   Second, they are different because various contracts say they are different, even if the authorities are basically the same.   NET and COM are differnet too, even though the same registry operator runs both.
[00:51:45] CJ Aronson leaves the room
[00:51:46] russ leaves the room
[00:51:49] Lee Howard leaves the room
[00:51:51] <Andy> Marc: new version of draft expected
[00:51:54] Ted_Hardie leaves the room
[00:51:54] Dave Crocker leaves the room
[00:51:54] Barbara Roseman leaves the room
[00:51:55] Barry Leiba leaves the room
[00:51:56] ctg1701 leaves the room
[00:51:56] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[00:51:56] <Andy> Leslie closes session
[00:51:56] Sean Turner leaves the room
[00:51:58] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[00:52:01] <Phill > Andrew, the folk on the table should have made the distinction
[00:52:04] Frederico A C Neves leaves the room
[00:52:05] Phill leaves the room
[00:52:18] <resnick> @john: ack. Trying to figure out the effective impact to the doc. More on list I'm sure.
[00:52:23] spamvictim leaves the room
[00:52:35] <Martin Duerst> Everybody, have a nice break!
[00:52:43] yone leaves the room
[00:52:45] wood leaves the room
[00:52:50] Martin Duerst leaves the room
[00:52:51] hildjj joins the room
[00:54:05] Aaron leaves the room
[00:54:21] <John Klensin> @pete: doc just needs to say "protocol parameter registries including the ARPA TLD" or "protocol parameter registeries and othr IANA elements under IAB/IETF authority such as the ARPA TLD"   A little precision now can save a world of trouble later, especially wrt my earlier comment about whether the IAB's authority from NTIA disappears when NTIA drops oversight.
[00:55:01] Stephen Farrell leaves the room
[00:55:07] shoji leaves the room
[00:55:07] John Klensin leaves the room
[00:55:25] JoeHallCDT leaves the room
[00:55:32] <resnick> If we have to be more specific, the latter seems better, though I think putting ARPA TLD in "the list" and leaving it out of the descriptive sentence would be better. But however it works out is OK.
[00:55:35] Frederico A C Neves joins the room
[00:55:46] Suzanne leaves the room
[00:55:55] <resnick> Off to eppext.
[00:56:08] resnick leaves the room
[00:56:32] Paolo saviano leaves the room
[00:56:47] Ned Freed leaves the room
[00:57:36] Frederico A C Neves leaves the room
[00:58:03] Glenn Kowack leaves the room
[00:58:06] Dan York leaves the room
[00:58:52] Meetecho leaves the room
[01:00:46] adrianfarrel leaves the room
[01:04:39] Ted_Hardie joins the room
[01:05:16] Jari Arkko leaves the room
[01:06:47] Andy leaves the room
[01:06:53] Ted_Hardie leaves the room
[01:08:16] Brian Carpenter joins the room
[01:08:16] Brian Carpenter leaves the room
[01:08:16] Jon leaves the room
[01:08:42] rik.ribbers leaves the room
[01:08:46] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[01:09:43] CJ Aronson joins the room
[01:11:16] Niels ten Oever leaves the room
[01:12:25] Cullen Jennings leaves the room
[01:12:42] Joana Varon leaves the room
[01:12:59] Sean Turner joins the room
[01:15:40] Lee Howard joins the room
[01:15:46] hildjj leaves the room
[01:16:39] Brian Carpenter leaves the room: offline
[01:16:47] rik.ribbers joins the room
[01:16:52] Lee Howard leaves the room
[01:17:36] Phill joins the room
[01:17:49] Phill leaves the room
[01:19:44] Frederico A C Neves joins the room
[01:20:39] Frederico A C Neves leaves the room
[01:20:41] Dan York joins the room
[01:20:57] Dan York leaves the room
[01:21:31] Jari Arkko joins the room
[01:21:36] Sean Turner leaves the room
[01:23:16] Jari Arkko leaves the room
[01:23:46] Suzanne joins the room
[01:24:35] Andy joins the room
[01:24:56] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[01:26:46] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[01:26:47] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[01:27:16] hildjj joins the room
[01:27:16] adrianfarrel joins the room
[01:28:09] Karen O'Donoghue joins the room
[01:28:26] Jari Arkko joins the room
[01:29:16] Suzanne leaves the room
[01:29:26] Suzanne joins the room
[01:29:34] Karen O'Donoghue leaves the room
[01:29:45] Suzanne leaves the room
[01:31:54] Andy leaves the room
[01:34:41] Niels ten Oever joins the room
[01:34:44] rik.ribbers leaves the room
[01:35:02] hildjj leaves the room
[01:38:30] Niels ten Oever leaves the room
[01:38:40] Barbara Roseman joins the room
[01:39:31] Barbara Roseman leaves the room
[01:41:18] CJ Aronson leaves the room
[01:47:07] wood joins the room
[02:09:01] Peter Koch joins the room
[02:18:10] Peter Koch leaves the room
[02:36:27] adrianfarrel joins the room
[02:36:47] adrianfarrel leaves the room
[02:47:32] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[02:52:27] adrianfarrel leaves the room
[03:05:05] wood leaves the room
[03:05:14] wood joins the room
[03:06:29] wood leaves the room
[03:12:11] wood joins the room
[03:22:31] wood leaves the room
[03:25:55] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[03:26:38] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[03:28:17] Jari Arkko leaves the room
[03:29:16] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[03:32:40] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[03:40:47] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[03:44:43] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[03:45:02] wood joins the room
[04:18:47] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[04:23:59] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[04:30:41] wood leaves the room
[04:42:44] wood joins the room
[04:54:53] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[04:58:17] russ joins the room
[05:09:19] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[05:31:11] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[05:44:47] wood leaves the room
[05:44:48] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[06:00:18] russ leaves the room
[06:30:58] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[06:39:39] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[06:46:46] ctg1701 joins the room
[06:52:24] ctg1701 leaves the room
[06:53:12] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[07:04:50] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[07:10:29] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[07:13:09] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[07:18:07] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[07:28:10] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[07:29:08] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[07:33:07] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[08:23:34] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[08:23:53] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[08:23:59] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[08:32:49] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[10:06:05] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[10:22:20] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[15:52:06] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[18:59:55] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[18:59:57] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[19:05:25] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[19:05:26] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[19:50:22] wood joins the room
[20:58:55] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[21:36:29] wood leaves the room
[23:05:18] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[23:09:15] wood joins the room
[23:29:32] russ joins the room
Powered by ejabberd Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!