IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 21 May 2015 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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 294CF1A020A for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2015 07:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 IxmsVrEAeSC4 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2015 07:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E02DD1A0193 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2015 07:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86480106CB for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2015 14:04:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wXkIf-SEHHow for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2015 14:04:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (unknown [IPv6:2400:8901::f03c:91ff:fe37:9daf]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1FB81063A for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2015 14:04:15 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 14:04:12 +0000
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20150521140411.GC20218@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <687222FF507C0D3EDBD9CAAA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <000001d091f7$266de3f0$7349abd0$@ch> <51ce19bc2a93443586adcdd2fac3888a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <555BD28F.10402@gmail.com> <97E5874491A30994EC386C37@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <555CEDFF.5010601@gmail.com> <51E8C05D9CFB07754ECD13F5@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <DM2PR0301MB065543B4DCBCB751656B563DA8C20@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <a78386a2666240d48be0aba1fb543e75@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <555DE2E7.2010201@cs.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <555DE2E7.2010201@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/0L-XtfdkacLu1bN1boZhYqthIK4>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 21 May 2015 14:04:19 -0000

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 02:51:35PM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> So I'd be interested in hearing from other folks who agree
> with what might be the position Milton has (after all the
> overstatement is discounted:-). Or who think that the IETF
> ought do something directly involving the PTI (e.g. to
> re-open the MoU to change the partner involved or something.)

I don't know that Avri's message actually meets those criteria, but it
is in my opinion the clearest and best statement of the argument in
this thread as to why the IETF might want to get involved in PTI
directly.  (I, for one, appreciated it.)

A

-- 
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Awkward access to mail.  Please forgive formatting problems.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email