On 11/01/2017 09:19, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 08:44:49AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Sorry, but I find the replacement of "IANA" by "IANA Services" throughout
the draft to be both ugly and plain wrong.
Well, we need something other than "IANA", because the IETF is but one
user of that mark, and the license that the IETF Trust gave to PTI
does not permit them to refer to themselves as "IANA".
I don't care what they call themselves. *WE* are writing this document,
we own the IANA trademark, and we can do exactly what we want with it.
Would "IANA Services Operator" do?
It is clumsy and pointless, but at least it's grammatical.
But it doesn't matter: this document is about what IANA does.
I think that's not quite correct. It's about what the IANA Services
Operator for the protocol parameters registries (and other registries
for which the IETF is policy authority) does.
The distinction escapes me. Anyway, as Bob Hinden suggested, this can
all be taken care by a simple sentence at the beginning.
Brian