[discuss] IANA

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Jan 6 19:40:05 UTC 2014

I'm not sure that this point is relevant here, and I've already
given my opinion elsewhere:


On 07/01/2014 04:35, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> As a practical matter, it would probably be a good idea to rename and
> rebrand the protocol registry so that it does not get caught in the
> crossfire as the IP allocation function is disputed.
> Allocating shared code points in a shared conceptual namespace is very
> different in practice and principle to allocation of code points which by
> their function are for use of specific parties. Allocating IP and DNS
> addresses is completely different to maintaining the list of parameters for
> Separating the protocol registry from the IP registry also helps build a
> firewall to protect IETF. The protocol registry is really an extension of
> the IETF functions, just like the RFC editor.
> The reason the IETF is targeted for ITU takeover but OASIS, W3C etc. do not
> is that it is seen as co-extensive with the Internet control points despite
> the fact that IETF actually has no remaining influence there.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the discuss mailing list