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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]]
>> 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:[e-mail]]
>>>> 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
>> [e-mail].
>>>>     Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan