Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

If the matter is of no concern to the IETF, then why should the IETF comment at all?

In the spirit of compromise, I offer the following alternative:

“The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal going forward, as far as the Protocol Parameters function is concerned.  The IETF raised two transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.  We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as well. The IETF IANAPLAN working group is of the view that the other parts of the proposal would not have any impact on the IETF, so it expresses no views with respect to them.”

Best,

Richard

From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 08:20
To: Richard Hill; 'Brian E Carpenter'; 'Stephen Farrell'; 'Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)'; 'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'
Cc: 'Marc Blanchet'
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

We do our work on IETF mailing lists, and you have previously written, your concerns do not attach to the IETF.

Eliot

On 8/25/15 8:15 AM, Richard Hill wrote:

I cannot agree to that because I do not support the proposal as a whole going forward. You can look at the ICG site to see why I don’t support it.

Best,

Richard

From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear@cisco.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 08:14
To: Richard Hill; 'Brian E Carpenter'; 'Stephen Farrell'; 'Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)'; 'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'
Cc: 'Marc Blanchet'
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

Hi Richard,

As I wrote, some of us HAVE read the other community proposals.  But in the spirit of compromise here is what I propose:

While the IANAPLAN WG has not discussed the other two community proposals in depth, we support the ICG proposal being advanced on the whole.  The IETF raised two transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal. We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as well.

How is that?

Eliot

On 8/25/15 8:10 AM, Richard Hill wrote:

Both Brian and I have made the point that the initial proposal could be misunderstood to mean that this group has evaluated and supports the non-protocol parts of the proposal. That is a substantial objection.

Best,
Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 07:59
To: Richard Hill; 'Brian E Carpenter'; 'Stephen Farrell'; 'Leslie
Daigle (ThinkingCat)'; 'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'
Cc: 'Marc Blanchet'
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind
Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

But you have yet to raise a substantial objection to what was initially
proposed.

On 8/25/15 7:58 AM, Richard Hill wrote:

Building on Brian's proposal that the less said, the better, an

alternative would be to drop the first sentence altogether, so that the
text would read:

“Regarding the draft ICG proposal, the IETF raised two transition

points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.  We would
ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as
well.”

Best,
Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 00:25
To: Stephen Farrell; Eliot Lear; Richard Hill; Leslie Daigle
(ThinkingCat); Ianaplan@Ietf. Org
Cc: Marc Blanchet
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind
Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

On 25/08/2015 08:19, Stephen Farrell wrote:

On 24/08/15 19:03, Eliot Lear wrote:

On 8/24/15 7:18 PM, Richard Hill wrote:

That's not my point. My point is that this group has not

considered

the other parts of the proposal, nor should it.

Andrew has already responded to you on that point.  And some of us
*have* considered the text on the whole.

I think Eliot is clearly correct here. (Even though I prefer
Leslie's text over Eliot's.)

Concur. The less said, the better, as far as *this WG* is concerned.

I hope and trust that the IAB will tackle the broader issue, and I
think the community part of that discussion belongs on

ietf@ietf.org.

    Brian

_______________________________________________
Ianaplan mailing list
Ianaplan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan