Subject: Re: [IAB] IAB appeal for arpa assignment

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 16:58:19 -0700

Hi Timothy,

It is important that an appeal sent to the IAB explicitly state what
decision from the IESG that you're appealing.  I recognize it should be
self evident, given recent history; but to ensure we do not misperceive
your request, can you please clarify which decision you are appealing (if
for no other reason than to form a proper document chain)?  And, if
possible, explain why the IESG's response was incorrect in your
interpretation (in other words, the underlying basis for your appeal).  Is
your appeal against the whole conclusion and response, or only parts of it,
for example?

Cheers,
Wes

---

From: Timothy Mcsweeney <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 23:57:45 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Wes,

In the IESG appeal I listed every decision I could think of but this time I would like to avoid that.  There are some decisions that the IESG made that I may be unaware of making it difficult for me to pick.  Section 8 of RFC 2026 says"

Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval of
Internet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain a
publicly accessible record of, every activity in which it engages, to
the extent that the activity represents the prosecution of any part
of the Internet Standards Process.

Can you please post the previous draft(s) of the final IESG decisions
and any other activity engaged in for that final decision of my appeal?

Thank you,
Tim

On August 3, 2020 at 7:58 PM Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi Timothy,

It is important that an appeal sent to the IAB explicitly state what decision from the IESG that you're appealing.  I recognize it should be self evident, given recent history; but to ensure we do not misperceive your request, can you please clarify which decision you are appealing (if for no other reason than to form a proper document chain)?  And, if possible, explain why the IESG's response was incorrect in your interpretation (in other words, the underlying basis for your appeal).  Is your appeal against the whole conclusion and response, or only parts of it, for example?

Cheers,

Wes

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 21:29:57 -0700

Hi Timothy,

> In the IESG appeal I listed every decision I could think of but this time I
> would like to avoid that.  There are some decisions that the IESG made that
> I may be unaware of making it difficult for me to pick.  Section 8 of RFC
> 2026 says"  
> 

The IAB does not have access to "previous draft(s)" of documents
authored by the IESG.  If they do exist, we wouldn't know about it or
have them unless they were provided to us [they weren't, as far as I
know].

[speaking for myself, not for the whole of the IAB] Although I'm the IAB
liason to the IESG, I am not a core member of the IESG and thus was not
privy to the conversations about your appeal to the IESG.  Thus, I must
base any conclusions I have on your desire for an appeal to the IAB
based on the information I can gather, which would certainly include the
IESG's response regarding the appeal and, hopefully, your view of
where and why that response was incorrect.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: Timothy Mcsweeney <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 00:53:36 -0400 (EDT)

Ok thank you Wes.

I know that the members of the IESG and the IAB are highly skilled seasoned professionals and in a group they are a formidable bunch.  I was wondering, what help is available to appellants like myself who are basically noobs to the entire process?

Tim

On August 4, 2020 at 12:29 AM Wes Hardaker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi Timothy,

2026 says"

know].

--

Wes Hardaker

USC/ISI

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 08:05:39 -0700

Timothy Mcsweeney <[email-masked]> writes:

> I know that the members of the IESG and the IAB are highly skilled
> seasoned professionals and in a group they are a formidable bunch.  I
> was wondering, what help is available to appellants like myself who
> are basically noobs to the entire process?

IMHO (and no one else's), I strive for what is right and best for the
internet as a whole.  I personally consider appeals to be a critical
element of ensuring that decision accountability is reviewed at multiple
layers to provide anyone (self proclaimed or not as "basic noobs") with
a decision that takes into account all opinions, regardless of who
states them, as equal in weight.  (The IETF rejects kings, presidents and
voting in favor of rough consensus and running code [1]).

So to respond to your statement: I have no allegiance to the IESG or to
my fellow IAB members, but rather hold tightly to the statement with
which I began and "strive for what is right and best for the internet as
a whole".  In order to consider an appeal within the IAB, I need to know
what decision specifically you're appealing and why.  Hence my past
request about specifics about any appeal you want the IAB to consider.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: Timothy Mcsweeney <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:05:04 -0400 (EDT)

Hello Wes,

Hello IAB members,

Hello IETF members,

This is to clarify that I am appealing the IESG's decision to not allow IANA to place my records into the uri.arpa zone.  Below I am presenting the facts behind my reasoning on why they should have allowed the assignment.

The uri.arpa assignment procedures are specifically spelled out within RFC3405.  The administrative and operational management of the uri.arpa zone are undertaken by IANA as it states in Section 9 of RFC3405 [1].  That Section also states:

The DNS records to be
inserted in these zones are subject to the review process described
in this document.

The only review process with a description in that document is in Section 5 where  an implementer is required to submit a registration template to the register uri mailing list so objections can be made over a two week period.  No objections were made to my submission. (IANA#1167794).

I also read the above as saying, there are no other review processes required for the submission of records into uri.arpa.  To further back this belief, any other such processes or documents would require a listing in the Resource Registry Matrix by agreement of the 2020 MOU between IANA and the IETF (Services section 1.) [2].  There is no additional listings in that matrix for the uri.arpa registry.  The IESG is charged with ensuring that these required procedures have been followed and any necessary prerequisites have been met [3].  The IESG is also the principle agent to the IETF to insure the technical viability of the standards created.  Because of this responsibility, any argument of oversight in regards to the IETF tree by the IESG should be directed back to the IESG and not be a cause to thwart new assignments.

My application uses the entire DDDS and is very much simpatico.  The authors of the DDDS give similar examples in RFC3402 Section 6.1 and 6.2(automobile parts and document identification services) [4].  This shows that the DDDS was expected to be used for a wide variety of services.

I'm asking the IAB to have the IESG decision annulled and recommend the IESG allow IANA to continue processing my assignment request.  Thank you.

Sincerely,

Tim McSweeney

[1]
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3405#section-9

[2]
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ietf-iana-agreement-2020-15jan20-en.pdf

[3]
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-6.5.2

[4]
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3402#section-6.1

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3402#section-6.2

Hi Timothy,

Cheers,

Wes

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:16:14 -0700

> Hello IETF members,

Hello Timothy,

Thanks for answering my questions and submitting an updated version of
your appeal with greater details on exactly what action you are
appealing.  The IAB's first meeting since your original submission will
be Wednesday, where your appeal is on the agenda and we'll likely begin
discussing it.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: Timothy Mcsweeney <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:32:26 -0400 (EDT)

Hello Wes,

Hello IAB members,

Hello IETF members,

I was reminded today about information that I had not previously added to my appeal that I would like to have included.  It is Section 3 of RFC3172  [1].  The last sentence of Section 3 says:

The "IANA Considerations" section should include the name of the
subdomain, the rules for how the subdomain is to be administered, and
the criteria for entries within the subdomain.

I point this out as an admission that the current best practices (BCP 52) were follwed by RFC3405 section 9 [2] and that the zone administration and criteria for entries within the uri.arpa zone stem from the IANA Considerations in section 9.

Thank you,

Tim McSweeney

[1]
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3172

[2]

On August 10, 2020 at 6:16 PM Wes Hardaker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

Timothy Mcsweeney <
[email-masked]> writes:

Hello Wes,

Hello IAB members,

Hello IETF members,

Hello Timothy,

discussing it.

--

Wes Hardaker

USC/ISI

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:59:56 -0700

Hello Timothy,

SUMMARY

The IAB has considered Mr. McSweeney’s appeal, initiated on 31 July
2020. After further discussion, it was clarified that it was regarding
the IESG’s affirmation of the decision to not allow IANA to place
records into the uri.arpa zone. After considering the circumstances, the
referenced RFC in total and the context of that document, the IAB
believes that the decision of the IESG was sound. It therefore declines
to take further action.

Note: IAB members Mirja Kuehlewind and Alissa Cooper recused themselves
from this decision.

ADDITIONAL DETAILS

The core of your appeal to the IAB centers on the belief that the IESG
did not properly follow RFC3405, sections 5 and 9 in
particular. However, section 5 itself refers to the larger process that
was properly followed:

The logical conclusion of this is that ANY sanctioned URI scheme or URN
namespace MUST be allowed to be registered if it meets the requirements
specified in this document as regards times to live and general impact
to the DNS.

The IAB finds that the IESG’s response to your appeal sufficiently
explains why the proposed registration did not meet the specified
technical requirements based on a review by the technical expert (per
RFC3405 3.1.2).

Note: this response is also available at:
https://www.iab.org/appeals/2020-2/iab-response-to-appeal-from-timothy-mcsweeney/

-- 
Wes Hardaker