Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Sun, 25 January 2015 00:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ocl@gih.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 E6E7C1A1BC5 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 16:15:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 70fKYxsqgSZ9 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 16:15:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waikiki.gih.co.uk (salsa.gih.co.uk [IPv6:2a00:19e8:10:5::b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 517D31A1BC3 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 16:15:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waikiki.gih.co.uk (localhost6.localdomain6 [IPv6:::1]) by waikiki.gih.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A30518F3AF; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 00:15:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gih.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mahalo1; bh=oRfs48Gzp ykEulC/IujF2bZo4cs=; b=JoL6EjbiAs9woKTGcj6F/gQem1pc5vdjhjHj7NYFk KPY2p896UU5dfyA86plChOjaC+8nCYTit6A2Yzd8HvtGvjJDL+7vS0Iu95l7dnHC yWJKzlJA/qcpRWxG1GMaQKIux+kTK4Izy6rWXlcMae7mgjhk3vwe70YQY8aWX7hT Jg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gih.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=mahalo1; b=dQL 0NQbjeo9BuMYuIED2m8L6XhYvHcz0xAa3vgka0sJLgTngScjkKfwTfKGYz4IWjnV NhNeBMEYxqzrdtb/z6LeMcnOznMP+/O+dNPk55LGOvyAU7+PSNQTrCNMIW5fnmOo BbDRjk1UlM4n7aYOyU1sD43l3mU9s4/oZXQ15+Ls=
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:120b:2c11:c5d0:5930:9e89:63c1:71f] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:120b:2c11:c5d0:5930:9e89:63c1:71f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by waikiki.gih.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F26918F3AC; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 00:15:42 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <54C435B1.9020704@gih.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 01:15:45 +0100
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <C172BBB7-9BA4-4BA7-848C-C7FE5B66CBF7@cooperw.in> <F8FC64C8-6FC7-4672-B18B-46DF993A653A@cooperw.in> <54C091D2.9050608@gmail.com> <1F30A463-76A9-4854-952A-35C54E42D2C6@istaff.org> <CAOW+2dvd1QRC6xbDTZ6ah23HfX=K=SeXDc1kXr2NREAcy37SvQ@mail.gmail.com> <54C13630.3050601@meetinghouse.net> <54C3D305.6030705@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <54C3D305.6030705@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/In0a9slT5sN67h0S6BAHtSHU1A8>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 00:15:49 -0000

On 24/01/2015 18:14, Avri Doria wrote:
> As for whether ICG experts should be expected to understand the
> intricacies of the arrangements supplied by the 3 communities, I am
> sure that each group having picked its finest, they are certainly
> capable of doing so,  And I beleive that as a group coordinating the
> puzzle of the partial responses from all communities they need to do
> so to figure out how to fit the 3 answers (once the have the 3) into a
> consistent response for NTIA.

One option will, of course, once the three plans are sent to the ICG,
for the ICG to ask the different operational communities if they wish to
align some parts of their proposals so as for them to be compatible. I
believe it would be the job of the ICG to identify the component parts,
but not their job to perform the amendments and alignment.
Kindest regards,

Olivier