Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 21 August 2015 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 A4EBC1AC3EF for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 ondgOhTLaNE9 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0715F1AC3F4 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1516; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1440174314; x=1441383914; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=duEE3gN4vk6S8v3M5APM9honSmPTVOCdzhpozIFh7jQ=; b=AU2dxIJxfw/JGTKDDZhl7U4JuCUIAcXjK1bFg7YEORUlGodbirhqXLmW bKnDd5Vlj3i65B3GzBQVgk1DDGJgNSS0QfloTtbzpq8OlT4iCuRqWjYOx 38sivZHdTPhICeg2kPS1oiNVG2N8xaOyWS4vGO3Pt1GXf4gi70HE+/2LP E=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AtBQAKUNdV/xbLJq1dg3GEDLpIh3ICgW0SAQEBAQEBAYEKhCQBAQQjVQEQCw4KCRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFBgEMCAEBiCq5CZYdAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARmLVIUKB4JpgUMBBJUtgj+BXIhUiHGRVCaDfzyCfwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,722,1432598400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="611096276"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Aug 2015 16:25:13 +0000
Received: from [10.61.74.227] (ams3-vpn-dhcp2787.cisco.com [10.61.74.227]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7LGPC0w004662; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:25:12 GMT
To: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>, "'Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)'" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
References: <95236452-2600-473E-B326-8AB8242484B4@thinkingcat.com> <018901d0dc22$4efb3870$ecf1a950$@ch> <BAB634F7-2429-4C09-AAAF-96D47C78EB51@thinkingcat.com> <01a801d0dc24$531bab40$f95301c0$@ch> <55D74BF9.2090901@cisco.com> <020001d0dc2c$b5514ba0$1ff3e2e0$@ch>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <55D750E8.7060100@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:25:12 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <020001d0dc2c$b5514ba0$1ff3e2e0$@ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UqU59Ti5KPaH30pGMObic5L3WoEcq8qIa"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/3YGSBk-1QQqrpNJkeMdE0pc9KUM>
Cc: "'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, 'Marc Blanchet' <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review
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: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:25:21 -0000

Hi Richard,

On 8/21/15 6:16 PM, Richard Hill wrote:
> The problem is that by supporting the entire proposal you are also taking a position on the names and addressing proposals. And it seems to me that that goes beyond the mandate of this group.

I disagree.  At the end of the day, the proposal goes in as a single
proposal.  NTIA doesn't get to evaluate a part of a proposal.  What I
think is important here is to ask this question: what part of the
proposal will cause the IETF trouble?  if the answer is none, then we
should be comfortable saying that.

Eliot