[Ianaplan] Where we're at/going forward

["Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Reviewing the discussion of the last 24 hours, I think the major points 
of discussion have revolved around:

	1. Role of the interim outcome
	2. Scope of the statement of the WG

Speaking as one co-chair of this group (i.e., Marc may have a different 
perspective), I believe:

1.  The interim meeting produced a good starting text, but there have 
been substantive issues raised on the list since the meeting, which were 
not addressed during the meeting.  We can’t roll back to the text from 
the interim without addressing those issues.

2. Those issues largely have to deal with clarity about scope of this 
WG’s comments.  As I noted on Friday,  we have a charter item to 
review the whole proposal but only in the light of the protocol 
parameter function.  This does not take anything away from our 
individual right and responsibility to review the whole proposal, and it 
also does not touch the fact that the IETF as a whole may have a broader 
responsibility to review the whole proposal, in the light of the future 
of the IANA entity in its entirety.   If people want to address that 
(the IETF’s larger response), they are welcome to address their 
comments in the appropriate forum, which is not this WG.  (I’m 
guessing it would be [e-mail], or anywhere the IAB designates).

Those of you who were on the call on Friday will recall that I urged 
that the WG’s statement be encapsulated (but clearly identified) in 
whatever total response the IAB sends on behalf of the IETF.  Consensus 
on the call was that the WG should send its own, scoped message 
directly.   That’s the path I articulated in my note after the call, 
but I’ll observe that the approach is also up for consensus 
confirmation on the list.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
[e-mail]
-------------------------------------------------------------------