[Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment

[Jari Arkko]

First, I agree with the proposed way forward, and that we 
should focus on parts B and C now. (With obvious further
work down the line for us when the names proposal is
ready.)

And I very much agree with this point of view from Joe:

>> Agree with the path forward, and would also suggest that we keep the
>> Names community apprised of our progress on related work as things they
>> may wish to consider in the development of their proposal.

Finally, back to substance - part B deals with accountability. With
the help of our IANA program at IAB, Russ and I recently
wrote an informational piece that talks about how we view
accountability and stability for protocol parameters. There’s
nothing new here if you’ve read the relevant RFCs, the
proposal, and other documents, but it may be a helpful
explanation of the big picture:

http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/02/ensuring-continuity-of-the-iana-registries/

As for the relationship of protocol and number proposals
wrt accountability, I think the arrangements are very similar
and at this point I cannot see any conflicts or missed areas.
Looking forward to input from others.

For part C, I think the answers from IETF perspective
are rather obvious, as we are continuing existing
practices and the adjustments are relatively minor.
But again, I think we’ve already talked about
the main differences between the protocol
and number proposals, and it seems easy
to find a path forward where they can work
together.

Cheers,

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150222/7ef15117/signature.asc>