Re: Suggestions for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

[Billy Biggs <vektor@DIV8.NET>]

On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Steve Bellovin wrote:

> Joseph Friedman writes:
> > 	Would it not be fair to say that the United States maintains legal
> > control over the functions carried out by IANA? IANA is a function
> > funded by the Department of Defense, a contract between DoD and
> > USC/ISI.  The U.S. is now making the decisions regarding ICANNs taking
> > over IANAs functions, not IETF.
> 
> IANA took care of three sets of data -- domain names, IP addresses, and
> protocol identifiers.  The third was by delegation from the IETF, and
> is *not* a concern of the U.S. government.  It is this function that
> is being delegated to ISI by the IETF, not the other two.  If you go
> back and read the White Paper, you'll see that parameter registration
> is explicitly excluded.

So, we're saying that the Protocol Supporting Organization has no purpose
until it is given authority over protocol assignments etc. by the IAB.

Therefore, the IAB/IETF is again asserting its authority over protocol
numbers.

Right?  I'd like to make sure since I don't think I'm alone in being not
sure about this...  Like, again, the Protocol Supporting Organization is
pointless until a decision is made and pending the decision may not
exist..

--
Billy Biggs
bbiggs@div8.net