Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Sat, 22 August 2015 05:45 UTC

Return-Path: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA051AD272 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6ZfaK8eX_RD6 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-sh2.infomaniak.ch (smtp-sh2.infomaniak.ch [128.65.195.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B85C81AD26B for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.infomaniak.ch (smtp4.infomaniak.ch [84.16.68.92]) by smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7M5jcQ2009602 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 22 Aug 2015 07:45:39 +0200
Received: from RHillNew (adsl-178-38-34-52.adslplus.ch [178.38.34.52]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp4.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7M5jaef008034; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 07:45:36 +0200
From: "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: "'Brian E Carpenter'" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "'Eliot Lear'" <lear@cisco.com>, "'Leslie Daigle \(ThinkingCat\)'" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
References: <95236452-2600-473E-B326-8AB8242484B4@thinkingcat.com> <018901d0dc22$4efb3870$ecf1a950$@ch> <BAB634F7-2429-4C09-AAAF-96D47C78EB51@thinkingcat.com> <01a801d0dc24$531bab40$f95301c0$@ch> <55D74BF9.2090901@cisco.com> <020001d0dc2c$b5514ba0$1ff3e2e0$@ch> <55D750E8.7060100@cisco.com> <55D7E01F.3020709@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <55D7E01F.3020709@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 07:45:50 +0200
Message-ID: <000001d0dc9d$ce306a40$6a913ec0$@ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
thread-index: AdDcg06G205Kn/4ESpqpoxz90EOjOgAGcSjQ
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: Dr.Web (R) for Unix mail servers drweb plugin ver.6.0.2.8
X-Antivirus-Code: 0x100000
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/030fji1ZfhO86KiTmSBaXkRCkTc>
Cc: "'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, 'Marc Blanchet' <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 05:45:49 -0000

I would not object to a text modified as Brain proposes below. If I understand correctly, it would read:

“The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal going forward, as far as the Protocol Parameters function is concerned.  The IETF raised two transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.  We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as well.”


Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2015 04:36
> To: Eliot Lear; Richard Hill; 'Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)'
> Cc: 'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'; 'Marc Blanchet'
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal
> review
> 
> On 22/08/2015 04:25, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > On 8/21/15 6:16 PM, Richard Hill wrote:
> >> The problem is that by supporting the entire proposal you are also
> taking a position on the names and addressing proposals. And it seems
> to me that that goes beyond the mandate of this group.
> >
> > I disagree.  At the end of the day, the proposal goes in as a single
> > proposal.  NTIA doesn't get to evaluate a part of a proposal.  What I
> > think is important here is to ask this question: what part of the
> > proposal will cause the IETF trouble?  if the answer is none, then we
> > should be comfortable saying that.
> 
> So, let's analyse that, *assuming* that our two "Paragraph 3062"
> reservations are brought up front. What will cause us trouble of a kind
> that we aren't already potentially exposed to? The only thing I can see
> is that there will be one more link in the formal management chain
> between us and the people doing the actual work of IANA. But since our
> deal already includes direct contact with the workers for day-to-day
> actions, where's the trouble?
> 
> Based on that, I support the proposed response. However, to avoid any
> over-interpretation, maybe the first sentence could be slightly
> qualified:
> "The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal going
> forward as far as the Protocol Parameters function is concerned."
> 
>    Brian