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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 25 August 2015 09:09 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 E35C11B2A62 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:09:42 -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 a6jY8qtpYz2F for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B38EF1AD0C4 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5207; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1440493780; x=1441703380; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=/ZLRsQjBbwhaHR3WbgAILK2Y7na+DPOrada8702pmCg=; b=UAAkYI3xho3ymGGpUze4WyK+erOqFFAAiAmyl6x4nK6vkJAKUW2WyIWv VYRG19JmTeeeZdw3josMXlsAwynSCehAhaK6dk9PqlIEtutShvPAlCTSq J5bsB46RtQ3HpiYkmiBhBvE4cLnYbjP+ovu8pAQuXAyr6X2Khh5kEZ2f2 s=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DhBABcL9xV/xbLJq1dh33CWAKBfgEBAQEBAYELhCQBAQQjVQEQDwoKCRYEBwICCQMCAQIBRQYBDAgBARCIGrIjlSABAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXkGEHgmmBQwEElTRwgVCBXIhWgUqEMIJ5I5E5JoIOHBaBQDyCfwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,744,1432598400"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="604688160"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Aug 2015 09:09:38 +0000
Received: from [10.61.201.53] ([10.61.201.53]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7P99a1F009425; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:09:36 GMT
To: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>, 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 'Stephen Farrell' <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "'Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)'" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, "'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
References: <3A072B1E-FE4C-476E-B6F8-0309F377D221@thinkingcat.com> <55DB487A.2060303@cisco.com> <6f7112a4-4313-4c33-b7d9-a238f01920f8@email.android.com> <55DB4F0E.9000105@cisco.com> <aced0eb7-deed-48e4-85cf-a0ffe55b34aa@email.android.com> <55DB5C8E.20406@cisco.com> <55DB7C4C.7070801@cs.tcd.ie> <55DB99D6.6080201@gmail.com> <001b01d0defb$0b93d660$22bb8320$@ch> <55DC043E.8060004@cisco.com> <006d01d0defc$c3c18970$4b449c50$@ch> <55DC079E.4000202@cisco.com> <009c01d0defd$7cbb3480$76319d80$@ch> <55DC0901.30702@cisco.com> <00d501d0defe$98978270$c9c68750$@ch> <55DC0BA2.9000301@cisco.com> <010d01d0df01$65fa7ae0$31ef70a0$@ch>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <55DC30CF.5090304@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:09:35 +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: <010d01d0df01$65fa7ae0$31ef70a0$@ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mGr4gOhgou2H08rbkjErRVgqejhFeAxOg"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/H0j_zvOJDf4NrC9a35FMCIDBUl4>
Cc: 'Marc Blanchet' <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Subject: [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 09:09:43 -0000

Hi Richard,

On 8/25/15 8:43 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
> This group is consistent: it supports the protocols part of the ICG proposal because that part is exactly what this group agreed by rough consensus, and it request that the bit in paragraph 3062 be referenced also elsewhere.
>
> This group has not discussed the other parts of the ICG proposal, so there is no reason why this group should take a position regarding those parts of the proposal.

The proposal will either go forward or not.  There are not THREE
proposals at this point.  Rather there is a single proposal.  In as much
as you had concerns about the individual components those rightfully
belong within the components as we have said all along, for the very
reasons you did not raise those issues here: you were found in the rough
in those other communities.  Further, as I wrote, a number of us have
read all the proposals, with an eye toward finding overlap.

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.  So, one more attempt at text:

    The IETF IANAPLAN WG prefers that the ICG proposal be advanced, as
    no concerns have been raised that would impact standards development
    or the operation of the protocol parameters registries.  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.  We take no position on the names
    or numbers community components.


Eliot