Re: [Ianaplan] Our impossible job, was Where we're at/going forward

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Wed, 26 August 2015 13:14 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 EB5961A88B9 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 MsfS9t5E3eGs for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:14:11 -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 E28511A88C3 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4996; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1440594851; x=1441804451; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=SmDXtB9X9MB1wzdJZ9cQ8WkNhcqr5nmBr2kE1+Rp5cs=; b=jesrVpcXqPWJaKvxncMmCakr6y8WC1vFwDY3ZjNqkHfx6NLWqW3RTTEM BnwKW8H2aSJr0liOyqB7obNa3CwyA7v4c4TuBbLOSbLYr8XXfHBst/DHl stp2zUnCOkZvmgLDdjid850qwYPc8Q+H1RMeWY1N4w1SFSKW2fb0ZpUm7 g=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CCCgA5u91V/xbLJq1dh3uqD5AwCodzAoFwFAEBAQEBAQGBCoQkAQEEI0kKAgEQCwQUCRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFBg0IAQEQiBqzVZR7AQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBAQEBAQEZi1uFCgeCaYFDAQSVN4JAgVyIVoh3j2OCASaEADyCfwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,416,1437436800"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="611197897"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2015 13:14:07 +0000
Received: from [10.61.210.101] ([10.61.210.101]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7QDE7fI026632; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:14:07 GMT
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
References: <20150825214212.60865.qmail@ary.lan> <55DD72CE.40403@cisco.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1508260844410.37319@ary.lan>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <55DDBB9E.3000007@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:14:06 +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: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1508260844410.37319@ary.lan>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="p6CPuqC7PH9i4aNcH3KuJQf5E3nnehfsw"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/7V78WRV7EJiECYAFSh2ExekMp1o>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Our impossible job, was Where we're at/going forward
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: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:14:13 -0000

Hi John,

On 8/26/15 3:02 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>> The problem is that you continue to treat this proposal as three. 
>> It's not.  It's one integrated proposal.  Further, a binary decision
>> will eventually be made.  Ours is as follows: do we support it or
>> not, and why or why not?  Does the ICG have more information if we
>> simply support only our portion of the proposal?  I would say not. 
>> They gain a little information if we tell them that they haven't
>> cocked it up.  But a very little more.  We have the opportunity to
>> say more.  If we pass on that opportunity, the decision will be ceded
>> to others; and we may not like their view or their goals at all.
>
> Now I'm really confused.  If we as think the parameters and numbers
> are OK but the names are headed for trouble, what do we say in what
> capacities?

From the IETF point of view, if that trouble from the names community is
heading our way, we should express our concerns and any proposed
changes.  Even if some trouble *is* headed our way (and nobody has
really seriously argued that it is), we should perform a a risk
analysis, like with many other business decisions to determine what path
is best to take.  The level of meta-conversation in this thread has
obscured nearly all of that because nobody has actually shown a
substantial risk to us.  Perhaps that's one of the reasons most people
are okay with Leslie's text, although I myself would prefer the
alternative I sent.

Eliot