to change, all of which is fine. But it doesn't say other than sort
of implicitly in #3 on page 13 that the IETF needs a binding agreement
with the IANA operator that has protections for the IETF community
that are substantially the same as those in the MOU in RFC 2860. It
really needs to say that explicitly.
This was debated substantially in the working group.
That is the main thing to observe. The topic has gotten a lot of attention
during WG discussion,
and a particular outcome emerged, and I believe the draft reflects that.
It sounds like we want the same thing here, but when I read the draft,
I don't see it actually saying that if there's a new IANA operator, we
need a new equally good contract. That seems to me to be worth making
explicit.
R's,
John