From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: ianaplan WG <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: WG Review: Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition (ianaplan)
A new IETF working group has been proposed in the General Area. The IESG
has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was
submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send
your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2014-09-04.
Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition (ianaplan)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Proposed WG
Chairs:
TBD
Assigned Area Director:
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Mailing list
Address: ianaplan@ietf.org
To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/
Charter:
Background
==========
Registries of parameter values for use in IETF protocols are stored
and maintainted for the IETF by the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations"
section in many RFCs.
For a number of years, maintenance of the IETF protocol parameters
registries has been provided by the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN). The IETF's relationship with IANA was
formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding between the IETF and
ICANN codified in 2000 with the publication of RFC 2860. Over time,
processes and role definitions have evolved, and have been documented
in supplemental agreements.
ICANN has had a contract with the US Department of Commerce (DoC) to
provide the IANA function, undertaken through the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). In March of
2014, NTIA announced its intention to transition out of its current
role, meaning that NTIA would not need to renew its contract with
ICANN when that contract expires 30 September 2015. NTIA requested a
transition proposal be prepared to outline the necessary
arrangements. In the case of the elements of the IANA function
concerning the IETF protocol registries, it is likely that the
existing well-documented practices will continue and no or little new
activity will be required.
Tasks
=====
The IANAPLAN working group is chartered to produce an IETF consensus
document that describes the expected interaction between the IETF and
the operator of IETF protocol parameters registries.
The system in place today for oversight of the IETF protocol
registries component of the IANA function works well. As a result,
minimal change in the oversight of the IETF protocol parameters
registries is preferred in all cases and no change is preferred when
possible. The working group will address the implications of moving
the NTIA out of its current role with respect to IANA on the IETF
protocol parameters registry function in a way that focuses on
continuation of the current arrangements. The working group will
assume the following documents continue to be in effect:
- RFC 2850
- RFC 3777 and its updates
- RFC 2860
- RFC 6220
- IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000
(http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000.pdf)
- ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreements
(updated yearly since 2007, the 2014 version is available at
http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/
2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf)
This working group is chartered solely with respect to the planning
needed for the transition, and is not meant to cover other topics
related to IANA. Possible improvements outside that scope will be set
aside for future consideration. However, the mechanisms required to
address the removal of the overarching NTIA contract may require
additional documentation or agreements.
Should proposals made by other communities regarding the
transition of other IANA functions affect the IETF protocol parameter
registries or the IETF, the WG may also review and comment on them.
Some parts of the transition proposal may need to document detailed
terms of agreements or other details of procedures that are normally
delegated to and handled by the IAB or IAOC. The working group will
not attempt to produce or discuss documentation for these details, but
will request the IAB or IAOC to provide them ready for submission as
part of the final proposal.
The WG shall seek the expertise of the IAB IANA Strategy Program to
formulate its output. It is expected that members of the IAB IANA
Strategy Program will actively participate in the WG.
Milestones:
Jan 2015 - complete protocol parameters registries proposal
May 2015 - review of other transition proposals, if needed
Sep 2015 - close
WG action announcement
WG Action Announcement
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: ianaplan WG <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: WG Action: Formed Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition (ianaplan)
A new IETF working group has been formed in the General Area. For
additional information please contact the Area Directors or the WG
Chairs.
Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition (ianaplan)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Proposed WG
Chairs:
Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
Assigned Area Director:
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Mailing list
Address: ianaplan@ietf.org
To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/
Charter:
Background
==========
Registries of parameter values for use in IETF protocols are stored
and maintainted for the IETF by the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations"
section in many RFCs.
For a number of years, this IANA function has been provided by the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The
IETF's relationship with IANA was formalized through a Memorandum of
Understanding between the IETF and ICANN codified in 2000 with the
publication of RFC 2860. Over time, processes and role definitions
have evolved, and have been documented in supplemental agreements.
ICANN has had a contract with the US Department of Commerce (DoC) to
provide the IANA function, undertaken through the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). In March of
2014, NTIA announced its intention to transition out of its current
role, meaning that NTIA would not need to renew its contract with
ICANN when that contract expires 30 September 2015. NTIA requested a
transition proposal be prepared to outline the necessary
arrangements. In the case of the elements of the IANA function
concerning the IETF protocol registries, it is likely that the
existing well-documented practices will continue and no or little new
activity will be required.
Tasks
=====
The IANAPLAN working group is chartered to produce an IETF consensus
document that describes the expected interaction between the IETF and
the operator of IETF protocol parameters registries.
The system in place today for oversight of the IETF protocol
registries component of the IANA function works well. As a result,
minimal change in the oversight of the IETF protocol parameters
registries is preferred in all cases and no change is preferred when
possible. The working group will address the implications of moving
the NTIA out of its current role with respect to IANA on the IETF
protocol parameters registry function in a way that focuses on
continuation of the current arrangements. The working group will
assume the following documents continue to be in effect:
- RFC 2850
- RFC 3777 and its updates
- RFC 2860
- RFC 6220
- IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000
(http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000.pdf)
- ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreements
(updated yearly since 2007, the 2014 version is available at
http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/
2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf)
This working group is chartered solely with respect to the planning
needed for the transition, and is not meant to cover other topics
related to IANA. Possible improvements outside that scope will be set
aside for future consideration. However, the mechanisms required to
address the removal of the overarching NTIA contract may require
additional documentation or agreements. The WG will identify, but
not create, such required agreements.
Should proposals made by other communities regarding the
transition of other IANA functions affect the IETF protocol parameter
registries or the IETF, the WG may also review and comment on them.
Fully documenting the interaction between the IETF and the operator
of IETF protocol parameters registries may require detailed terms of
agreements or other details of procedures that are normally delegated
to and handled by the IAB or IAOC. The working group will not attempt
to produce or discuss documentation for these details, but will
request the IAB or IAOC to provide them separately.
The WG shall seek the expertise of the IAB IANA Evolution Program to
formulate its output. It is expected that members of the IAB IANA
Evolution Program will actively participate in the WG.
Milestones:
Jan 2015 - complete protocol parameters registries document
May 2015 - review of other transition proposals, if needed
Sep 2015 - close