>>> to change, all of which is fine. But it doesn't say other than sort >>> of implicitly in #3 on page 13 that the IETF needs a binding agreement >>> with the IANA operator that has protections for the IETF community >>> that are substantially the same as those in the MOU in RFC 2860. It >>> really needs to say that explicitly. >> >> This was debated substantially in the working group. > >That is the main thing to observe. The topic has gotten a lot of attention during WG discussion, >and a particular outcome emerged, and I believe the draft reflects that. It sounds like we want the same thing here, but when I read the draft, I don't see it actually saying that if there's a new IANA operator, we need a new equally good contract. That seems to me to be worth making explicit. R's, John