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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 19 January 2015 22:37 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 E8BF01B2CE6 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:37:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 Z7IZp3XMIW-D for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:37:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22a.google.com (mail-pd0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 386C21B2CEC for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:37:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id p10so27403168pdj.1 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:37:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5UkLoZgFMZN2WvU0Db5bnQy6nAy+GLq8A00gdRWWQhg=; b=Rsc9jIf8QNvjelaCs4E3kT7koUFH8zlQeatDbm6TpblQz9GW0OshZqFS0c3rxizVD3 vJ9cBSoXRhpnz2hWGpoUcDR2OtupdzqLpVQQ5cTHpzO3ot8P/9iF/t8ceIi2efwao5A4 BvO6+ZnGUAbZxnhg8vCIERdVnJr2N883idSrO79iL8PvJA/Jv1pGGr93OmU9uB7NdgwW jhDR703BTtYPXFmhcbCeTecQiRMKDWgZEZT4u1q2VDaGkmlLajIs6+GCYW0g3MtX3naL ChyXmFXkaDJioGYzgbGgxTBAMk1aO7ApMe0JwhC5rsnOV69QpGM0wJkaWA8TpkajvLIw Xmgw==
X-Received: by 10.70.96.145 with SMTP id ds17mr38345888pdb.88.1421707068526; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:37:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.177.175.203] ([119.17.32.194]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kr10sm12674014pdb.42.2015.01.19.14.37.46 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:37:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54BD873D.7090803@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 11:37:49 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <C172BBB7-9BA4-4BA7-848C-C7FE5B66CBF7@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <C172BBB7-9BA4-4BA7-848C-C7FE5B66CBF7@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/2zkCo600uDJGkgUFNxCgKOlICvI>
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: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 22:37:51 -0000

Hi,

I'm "senior" enough to have known Richard Hill for many years, but I believe
this is the first time he's participated extensively in an IETF WG, so it's
understandable that he found the rough consensus process a little surprising.
Another thing that long-term IETFers tend to take for granted is a preference
for saying nothing about a topic when it's considered out of scope for the WG.
In this case it was clear that the issues he's concerned about are valid, but
out of scope for the WG (and in scope for the IAOC and the IETF Trust, but
later on, not now). I think this was very explicit in the discussion, was not
necessary to state in detail in the text, and was well understood in the
IESG's review and approval process.

Regards
  Brian Carpenter
On 20/01/2015 03:33, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> After draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response was submitted to the ICG, the ICG received the following comment: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00017.html
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>