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

"Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> Sat, 22 August 2015 12:27 UTC

Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
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 081CA1A8716 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 05:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 Gri2MgeBBP_M for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 05:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 217C91A8714 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 05:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [206.123.31.226] (h226.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.226]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E8D4476B9; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 08:27:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
To: "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 08:27:27 -0400
Message-ID: <EEA2EEB8-30AD-4A55-9ADA-A5F46BE81CE4@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <000001d0dc9d$ce306a40$6a913ec0$@ch>
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> <55D750E8.7060100@cisco.com> <55D7E01F.3020709@gmail.com> <000001d0dc9d$ce306a40$6a913ec0$@ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/4UzZ-in3NljyAPpxvoGnYVhtgWk>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, "Leslie Daigle \(ThinkingCat\)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
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: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 12:27:43 -0000


On 22 Aug 2015, at 1:45, Richard Hill wrote:

> I would not object to a text modified as Brain proposes below. If I 
> understand correctly, it would read:
>
> “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.”

speaking as individual, I’m fine with that wording.

Marc.


>
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2015 04:36
>> To: Eliot Lear; Richard Hill; 'Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)'
>> Cc: 'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'; 'Marc Blanchet'
>> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal
>> review
>>
>> On 22/08/2015 04:25, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> So, let's analyse that, *assuming* that our two "Paragraph 3062"
>> reservations are brought up front. What will cause us trouble of a 
>> kind
>> that we aren't already potentially exposed to? The only thing I can 
>> see
>> is that there will be one more link in the formal management chain
>> between us and the people doing the actual work of IANA. But since 
>> our
>> deal already includes direct contact with the workers for day-to-day
>> actions, where's the trouble?
>>
>> Based on that, I support the proposed response. However, to avoid any
>> over-interpretation, maybe the first sentence could be slightly
>> qualified:
>> "The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal 
>> going
>> forward as far as the Protocol Parameters function is concerned."
>>
>> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan