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

That's not my point. My point is that this group has not considered the other parts of the proposal, nor should it. 

So this group should not make a comment that can be understood as a comment on the other parts of the proposal.

Best Richard

On August 24, 2015 7:06:22 PM CEST, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>Richard,
>
>On 8/24/15 7:03 PM, Richard Hill wrote:
>> I object to Eliot's version, because it implies that this group has
>> studied all parts of the ICG proposal and approves all parts.
>>
>
>I don't find this a credible objection.  For one thing, you have not
>shown how the proposal would adversely impact the IETF.  Please ground
>your criticism in specifics as relates to the IETF.
>
>Eliot
>
>
>> Best Richard
>>
>> On August 24, 2015 6:38:18 PM CEST, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Leslie,
>>
>>     On 8/24/15 6:22 PM, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi,
>>>
>>>     Bearing in mind the context below, it seems to us that the text
>>>     currently under discussion for consensus (with thanks to Brian
>>>     and Richard, all) is:
>>>
>>>     “The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal
>>>     going forward, as far as the Protocol Parameters function is
>>>     concerned.  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.”
>>
>>     I don't think this text is there yet, so please class this as an
>>     objection.  The issue remains that this reads as though we are
>>     approving a single portion of text that we have contributed. 
>>     Realistically I do not know how the ICG would take such a
>>     comment.  It is akin to saying nothing, since support for the
>text
>>     we contributed is well known.  And therefore, we would be better
>>     off saying nothing.  Rather than do that, however, I propose an
>>     alternative, as follows:
>>
>>         The IETF IANAPLAN working group has reviewed the ICG proposal
>>         and found no concerns relating to our activities, and
>>         therefore support its advancement on that basis.  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 makes clear that we are not making statements beyond how
>this
>>     proposal will impact us.
>>
>>     Eliot
>>
>>    
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     Ianaplan mailing list
>>     Ianaplan@ietf.org
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>
>> -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my
>brevity. 
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ianaplan mailing list
>Ianaplan@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.