IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] on considering consensus

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Tue, 25 August 2015 06:09 UTC

Return-Path: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
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 9D8A11A89C7 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 7j5y-vpiuPuU for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch (smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch [128.65.195.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2DEB1A8A48 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.infomaniak.ch (smtp4.infomaniak.ch [84.16.68.92]) by smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7P69Ikr017168 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:09:18 +0200
Received: from RHillNew (adsl-178-39-130-230.adslplus.ch [178.39.130.230]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp4.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7P69DJ8032140; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:09:13 +0200
From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: 'Eliot Lear' <lear@cisco.com>, 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "'Leslie Daigle (TCE)'" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, 'Marc Blanchet' <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
References: <55DBFC39.5000701@cisco.com> <55DC0030.5080809@gmail.com> <55DC00CD.9040804@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <55DC00CD.9040804@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:09:28 +0200
Message-ID: <006301d0defc$9c99e2c0$d5cda840$@ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdDe+StkAw8plBoLQyuLU4UmBO6RsQAAw1pw
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: Dr.Web (R) for Unix mail servers drweb plugin ver.6.0.2.8
X-Antivirus-Code: 0x100000
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/C6074tvRbyf4dhsNg9K-A1DzaPw>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] on considering consensus
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: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 06:09:25 -0000

Please see below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eliot
> Lear
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 07:45
> To: Brian E Carpenter; Leslie Daigle (TCE); Marc Blanchet
> Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] on considering consensus
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/25/15 7:42 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > We have this rule that rough consensus is established on the list.
> And
> > I would say the problem with the meeting text is that journalists
> will
> > spin it to say that the IETF agrees with the whole plan.
> 
> But the text that you proposed will be spun the opposite way that there
> is not support for the proposal as a whole, which is worse.  

Whether or not that is "worse" depends on whether or not one thinks that the proposal as a whole should be supported.

But I take your point.

Here is an alternative that attempts to address your concern:

“The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal going forward as far as the Protocol Parameters function is concerned, and takes no position regarding the other functions.  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, or something like that, makes it clear that this group is not making an evaluation of the other parts of the proposal.



>And rough
> consensus can be CONFIRMED on the list.  I don't say we have it at this
> point, but I'd like the 15 people not to be ignored.
> 
> Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email