On 11/01/2017 09:19, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 08:44:49AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but I find the replacement of "IANA" by "IANA Services" throughout
>> the draft to be both ugly and plain wrong.
>
> Well, we need something other than "IANA", because the IETF is but one
> user of that mark, and the license that the IETF Trust gave to PTI
> does not permit them to refer to themselves as "IANA".
I don't care what they call themselves. *WE* are writing this document,
we own the IANA trademark, and we can do exactly what we want with it.
> Would "IANA Services Operator" do?
It is clumsy and pointless, but at least it's grammatical.
>> But it doesn't matter: this document is about what IANA does.
>
> I think that's not quite correct. It's about what the IANA Services
> Operator for the protocol parameters registries (and other registries
> for which the IETF is policy authority) does.
The distinction escapes me. Anyway, as Bob Hinden suggested, this can
all be taken care by a simple sentence at the beginning.
Brian