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

Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Fri, 21 August 2015 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <seun.ojedeji@gmail.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 0056F1ACD2E for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 fUdTUWnpP4_K for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22c.google.com (mail-ob0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 257A71ACD2B for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbhe7 with SMTP id he7so65918709obb.0 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=6PBsDuWoFfR+tIylQsbtnJUT1yO+iv8IQgIyvrnQrE8=; b=pmt+t9ppY4iEbj9WGqDcuQMm6z3o3q044xmKy6209PbISFPq0Pr12lDJCHs/+uT4BT H3ImTeRCrD8ALI+7rPDNGWs9qVnnagZKP8cVJ1Kl6g8QtRGDfJ1EvE51SEFOlwPRbLXB IuPOjt3v2/nImdDc280BK7q1sp4ENBGkjVu3U6n5d9D89upAbTtuE0jecu5fplKNuLCD zON6YRcmHEciALr0eHFsM6tBG5ExpArKs2z5/nJhhXirtUvnKptcjpJZhE7ZLbsLKOC/ 14nM+m/yuN0psq0/b0uyb7WLLMSKXD3o/a037T/HYKVA4/24pCGdON3ot9W0RWlWA9s/ d8Lw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.120.100 with SMTP id lb4mr8858037obb.71.1440182133327; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.35.136 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.35.136 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <020001d0dc2c$b5514ba0$1ff3e2e0$@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>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:35:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6g9r9nJOs-Rurcbee2-G4GHwuFH97yCRsPijJk9S3dz8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
To: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a098c780bee051dd688a5
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/8CVsCNUM_mKqSSPhboRNgBWTcb8>
Cc: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, "Leslie Daigle \(ThinkingCat\)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
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 18:35:37 -0000

Hi,

I think the overall goal of the ICG PC is in 2 folds:

1. To check if the proposal from IETF (speaking in context) remains as
submitted to ICG i.e no changes in its substance.

2. To determine if the combined proposal is operationally workable and meet
the requirements set out by NTIA.

Therefore in my opinion, I think IETF comment should address beyond its own
proposal.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 21 Aug 2015 17:16, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> 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.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eliot
> > Lear
> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 18:04
> > To: Richard Hill; 'Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)'
> > Cc: 'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'; 'Marc Blanchet'
> > Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal
> > review
> >
> > I would not be prepared to support this alternative because it is
> > beyond question (by anyone) that we support our own contribution.  What
> > we also support, I claim, is the overall proposal advancing as it is
> > sufficient to support the needs of the IETF.
> >
> > Eliot
> >
> > On 8/21/15 5:16 PM, Richard Hill wrote:
> > > Dear Leslie,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your clarification. It does not change my position
> > regarding the text that you proposed, because that text refers to the
> > entire ICG proposal.
> > >
> > > I would have no objections to a modified text that makes it clear
> > that this group is supporting only its part of the ICG proposal. For
> > example:
> > >
> > > “The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports its part of the draft ICG
> > proposal going forward, but does not comment on the other parts of the
> > draft ICG proposal.  However, 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: Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) [mailto:ldaigle@thinkingcat.com]
> > >> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 17:10
> > >> To: Richard Hill
> > >> Cc: Ianaplan@Ietf. Org; Marc Blanchet
> > >> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG
> > proposal
> > >> review
> > >>
> > >> Hi Richard,
> > >>
> > >> I appreciate that there is much more that can be said about the
> > >> overall proposal, but please see the note I just sent to the list
> > >> clarifying the context for our remarks, and let us (the WG) know
> > your
> > >> perspective in the light of that context.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Leslie.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> Leslie Daigle
> > >> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
> > >> ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> On 21 Aug 2015, at 11:01, Richard Hill wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Please note that I do not agree with this. I have many objections
> > to
> > >>> the combined ICG proposal, even if not specifically with the
> > >> protocols
> > >>> part of that proposal.
> > >>>
> > >>> So I object to this.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks and best,
> > >>> Richard
> > >>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > >> Leslie
> > >>>> Daigle (ThinkingCat)
> > >>>> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 16:35
> > >>>> To: Ianaplan@Ietf. Org
> > >>>> Cc: Marc Blanchet
> > >>>> Subject: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal
> > >>>> review
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As noted in the minutes from today’s IANAPLAN WG virtual interim
> > >>>> meeting, participants agreed on a brief message in support of the
> > >>>> collected ICG proposal.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> While the IAB is preparing a wider response, the proposal is that
> > >> the
> > >>>> IANAPLAN WG will communicate to the ICG the following message
> > >> related
> > >>>> to the IANAPLAN’s work output (part of the IETF contribution):
> > >>>>
> > >>>> “The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal
> > >>>> going forward.  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.”
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This message is to confirm WG consensus on the proposed action via
> > >>>> this e-mail list.  All WG participants are encouraged to review
> > the
> > >>>> meeting minutes for further elaboration of the discussion around
> > >> this
> > >>>> text.
> > >>>> If
> > >>>> you have any disagreement with it, please share your comment to
> > >>>> this list by noon EDT (16h00 UTC) Friday August 28, 2015.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Leslie, for Leslie&Marc.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> > >>>> Leslie Daigle
> > >>>> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
> > >>>> ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Ianaplan mailing list
> > >>>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Ianaplan mailing list
> > >>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ianaplan mailing list
> > > Ianaplan@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>