IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process

Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Sun, 25 January 2015 23:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mueller@syr.edu>
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 800501A0387 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 15:50:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 dTXi92it2S0X for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 15:50:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.syr.edu (smtp2.syr.edu [128.230.18.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E0121A038D for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 15:50:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EX13-MBX-08.ad.syr.edu (ex13-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu [128.230.108.139]) by smtp2.syr.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t0PNoKYl010461 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:50:20 -0500
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) by EX13-MBX-08.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:50:14 -0500
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) by EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:50:14 -0500
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
To: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
Thread-Index: AQHQNc4GUZ69jua1R0K88UjT4oKhM5zL+XQAgAAGXoCAALihAIAABPIAgAMdUICAAcW7gP//5V+w
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 23:50:13 +0000
Message-ID: <c258dfbdcb3b45f3a5d239fc6c3f0246@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C172BBB7-9BA4-4BA7-848C-C7FE5B66CBF7@cooperw.in> <F8FC64C8-6FC7-4672-B18B-46DF993A653A@cooperw.in> <54C091D2.9050608@gmail.com> <1F30A463-76A9-4854-952A-35C54E42D2C6@istaff.org> <CAOW+2dvd1QRC6xbDTZ6ah23HfX=K=SeXDc1kXr2NREAcy37SvQ@mail.gmail.com> <54C13630.3050601@meetinghouse.net> <54C3D305.6030705@acm.org> <20150125201843.GB76865@mx1.yitter.info>
In-Reply-To: <20150125201843.GB76865@mx1.yitter.info>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [69.250.145.83]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-01-25_03:2015-01-24, 2015-01-25, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1501250268
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/2CCn_mM_mxom9dI3srebxclsnAQ>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
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: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 23:50:25 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> The IETF has spoken: it's satisfied with the existing state of affairs, and wants
> the IAOC to implement that.  Moreover, the IETF in my reading said that we

How does one "implement" an "existing state of affairs?" If it is existing, it does not need implementation; if it needs implementation it is not quite the existing state of affairs yet. 

The IANAPLAN draft said: 

"No new organizations or structures are required. ... However in the absence of the NTIA contract a few new arrangements may be needed in order to ensure the IETF community's expectations are met." 

I would hope that the official shepherd of the document would be able to represent its contents accurately. No more 'spin', please.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email