[Ianaplan] Where we're at/going forward

"Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com> Tue, 25 August 2015 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04AD91A1A69 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.156
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.156 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fti07J91YvwY for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a103.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AAB41A1A98 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a103.g.dreamhost.com (localhost []) by homiemail-a103.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A702005E627; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=thinkingcat.com; h=from:to :subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=thinkingcat.com; bh=xDK0zx7z7XhnXb 19zrrG11JeZ0o=; b=k8p3u26jOcWNZr+Mg6VGuTt1oM4ziGcIConeKumE8G6knc GCTI2HL0tHzfigQPC9Fb76C/Qoy97uRTwhAD9BuJABdf45m4A38MfHYbilfhZuON T3yBvCx4I4pkm7sDdrdKwKgmzq5umeYJWWvdw4HfQGpXXE/cXcjeA6vDzeFfg=
Received: from [] (pool-108-44-246-138.clppva.fios.verizon.net []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: leslie@oceanpurl.net) by homiemail-a103.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68B502005E623; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
To: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 12:52:17 -0400
Message-ID: <F53CA370-823C-4D7D-ADA3-420061CE6EA5@thinkingcat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate Trial (1.9.1r5084)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/1l_i24uHXZUooqPDuWi1PKbWtP4>
Subject: [Ianaplan] Where we're at/going forward
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: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:52:21 -0000


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 iab@iab.org, 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 Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises