>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 19:11:36 -0500 (EST)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["Donald E.
Eastlake 3rd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From torque.pothole.com!dee3 Fri Feb 26 19:11:35 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from torque.pothole.com([209.94.126.195]) (3007 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
> via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
> (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 19:11:34 -0500 (EST)
> (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
>Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by torque.pothole.com (8.8.2/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA06051;
> Fri, 26 Feb 1999 19:10:43 -0500 (EST)
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Authentication-Warning: torque.pothole.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't
use HELO protocol
>To: "Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: fyi - an exchange of mail with ICANN
>In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:10:41 PST."
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 19:10:43 -0500
>From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Mts: smtp
>
>
>There is always a problem in these disucssions that different people
>mean different things by "IETF". To some people it just means the
>IESG and their working groups and the Secretariate with a little of
>the IAB thrown in. To others it means the IAB, IESG, IRSG, IANA, RFC
>Editor, etc., etc.
>
> ---
>
>Other groups come up with protocols all the time. They have generally
>gone to IANA for assignments and, while no situation is perfect or
>makes everyone happy I have not heard much in the way of complaint. I
>understood the letter to say that ICANN's charter is to AVOID cases
>where the IETF/IANA and, say, the IEEE were both trying to allocate
>independently out of the same pool resulting in conflicts and lack of
>global interoperability. As long as IANA is doing the allocating and
>it isn't being a big problem, why would ICANN, whatever you think it's
>power might be, act?
>
>Donald
>
>From: Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:10:41 -0800 (PST)
>Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>cc: Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>> Second, the protocol number assignment is now and has since the inception
>>> of the IETF been an IETF function. It is not the place of the US Government
>>> or any other body to assign or contract the services apart from our
approval.
>>
>>What happens if the IEEE or ITU (or some other "standards" body)
>>should come up with a UDP or TCP or even IP based protocol, and it
>>brews up a UDP, TCP, or IP protocol number (as appropriate)?
>>
>>I perceive two distinct, and mutually exclusive, paths:
>>
>> - The IEEE or ITU has to go to the IETF and ask for a number assignment.
>>
>> - The IEEE, ITU, and IETF (and others) are free to legislate the number
>> subject to the rules to be defined by ICANN.
>>
>>The letter seems to indicate the latter path.
>>
>> --karl--
>>
>>
>
--
"How gratifying for once to know... that those up above
will serve those down below" - S. Todd
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's all just marketing" +1 (613) 473-1719
Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0
