Hi Vint,
Thanks for your comments.
On 12/1/14, 12:42 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:
the IETF document says:
The IETF is a global organization that produces voluntary standards,
whose goal is to make the Internet work better [RFC3595]. IETF
standards are published in the RFC series. The IETF is responsible
for the key standards that are used on the Internet today, including
IP, TCP, DNS, BGP, and HTTP, to name but a few.
Query: is HTTP maintained by IETF or by W3C? I see the note from Mark
Nottingham referencing HTTPbis WG and RFCs 7230-7235 so I assume this WG must
have collaborative involvement of W3C participants also?
HTTP is maintained by the IETF. The chair of the WG in question is also
the IETF liaison manager to the W3C, and their liaison manager does
participate in our meetings and mailing lists.
It is important to note that the IETF includes anyone who wishes to
participate. Staff and participants from ICANN or the Regional
Internet Registries (RIRs) regularly participate in IETF activities.
Query: Should any others be mentioned explicitly in addition to the RIRs?
For this and another comment below, the logic for mentioning ICANN & the
RIRs is that they are the other legs of the IANA stool.
The routing architecture has evolved over time, and is expected to
continue to do so. Such evolution may have an impact on
appropriate IP address allocation strategies. As and when that
happens, we will consult with the RIR community, as we have done
in the past.
Query: should this say "consult and coordinate"?
That looks like a good change, and propose to include it in the next
revision.
IETF standards changes may have impact on operations of RIRs and
service providers. A recent example is the extensions to BGP to
carry the Autonomous System numbers as four-octet entities
[RFC6793]. It is important to note that this change occurred out
of operational necessity, and it demonstrated strong alignment
between the RIRs and the IETF.
Query: one would have thought the ISPs and Operator Groups (e.g. NANOG) would
also have been involved?
See above. Of course NOGs have a huge role to play.
In the case where someone claims that
the procedures themselves are insufficient or inadequate in some way
to address a circumstance, one may appeal an IAB decision to the
Internet Society Board of Trustees.
Query: Is this still an operational practice?
If by operational you mean that people appeal to the BoT, to the best of
my knowledge it hasn't happened. But the avenue is available.
Appendix A. Changes
I'll take these as editorial. Thanks for pointing them out. Darn right
IANAL. The documents contained in the appendices were copied verbatim,
as best as could be, given the formatting limitations of Internet-Drafts.
Eliot
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature