Re: [Ianaplan] One more attempt at text (Re: Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review)

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 25 August 2015 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 5D3ED1B2A06 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 lZmqJUo1HQpF for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68A1B1B2C3D for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1ZUFuO-0001lx-Ge; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:13:08 -0400
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:13:03 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <A619F46842E0B3A5C0C9A9D4@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/EXAiIxnvWEzdwpI7qt07ry2vBdw>
Cc: "'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] One more attempt at text (Re: Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: 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: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:13:12 -0000

(sorry... resending from correct address)

--On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 11:09 +0200 Eliot Lear
<lear@cisco.com> wrote:

> At this point in time the issue for the IETF is really quite
> simple: do we want the proposal to go forward or not?  That is
> what this working group is being asked for a position on.

Eliot,

I think the problem is that this WG isn't explicitly chartered
to answer that question.  That creates at least reasonable doubt
that people who participate regularly in the IETF and who might
have strong and qualified positions on the general "go forward
or not" issue are not tracking the WG or represented in it.  In
addition, we rarely let WGs speak for the IETF ("approximately
never" might be closer than "rarely").    So ...

(1) You, the co-chairs, the AD, or just about anyone else can
reasonably ask the WG for its collective opinion on any topic at
all, but, if that opinion is going to be turned into an IETF
opinion (i.e., a response to "the issue for the IETF"), then
whatever opinion the WG offers needs to be reformulated into an
IETF opinion and subjected to a four-week (minimum) Last Call.
In addition, it is certainly reasonable for the WG to have an
open discussion on whether or not it is appropriate for the WG
to render an opinion on that subject (even if it were clearly in
scope).

(2) The WG needs to make statements only within its scope and
qualifications and, if it offers additional opinions, to clearly
identify and separate the two.  If that approach is followed, it
is probably appropriate that the WG take a position but we need
to be clear that is not an IETF position.

     john