[CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Wed Jun 10 20:02:56 UTC 2015

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 03:37:46PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:

> The RFCs define rules and
> parameters; I don't consider them (or the IETF) to be the actual source of
> either names or numbers.

I'm not entirely sure what this means.  If you mean, "The IETF doesn't
allocate names or numbers," you're quite correct.  But, the IETF
defines the protocols in which both names and numbers are meaningful,
defines how they work, defines their syntax, and specifies their use.
This is directly acknowledged in the CWG proposal.  Without those
definitions, none of the name or numbers registries would be
interesting.  I think that's the sense in which Seun was speaking.
(Indeed, the IETF can and sometimes does hive off chunks of both name
and number space for special-purpose use.  That's entirely correct,
because it is defining the limits of the in-protocol name or number

Anyway, none of that is directly relevant to the question of what to
do with the trademark and domain name.  

> objection.  To my recollection (to the extent I can have a recollection out
> of 8000+ emails), nobody asked the names community.

Except, of course, that the different communities were asked about
inconsistencies, and the names community wasn't ready yet so it
couldn't answer.  This is clearly an inconsistency between the two
proposals, and so there's going to need to be a reconciliation of some
kind.  It'd be nice to avoid that.  Fortunately, only two proposals
are at issue, because the IETF's doesn't seem to care about this.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list