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

Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> Mon, 24 August 2015 17:03 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 CEC1C1A87B3 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 TnuJaMDC_Ig0 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:03:25 -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 BE5BF1A8892 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:03:24 -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 t7OH3CrI023558 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 24 Aug 2015 19:03:13 +0200
Received: from android-83ae956fa395ac6e.fritz.box (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 t7OH38nb002988; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 19:03:09 +0200
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <55DB487A.2060303@cisco.com>
References: <3A072B1E-FE4C-476E-B6F8-0309F377D221@thinkingcat.com> <55DB487A.2060303@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----2E2MJLAMWUABEQP1437ET1DDOJET9K"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 19:03:06 +0200
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <6f7112a4-4313-4c33-b7d9-a238f01920f8@email.android.com>
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/JWf8BScU71BewgqkopGc-a7kAQw>
Cc: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] 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: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:03:28 -0000

I object to Eliot's version, because it implies that this group has studied all parts of the ICG proposal and approves all parts.

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.