Re: [Ianaplan] Our impossible job, was Where we're at/going forward

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 26 August 2015 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 9E3961A8712 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.263
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.263 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 xlzNyNVPOKve for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7CAE1A7012 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 80583 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2015 13:02:43 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=13ac6.55ddb8f3.k1508; bh=dh/WGNgZalfL3c5/+0gF9LLPtDj3GWh9pWYPT4x0n7I=; b=XqYCdXMvvxBeUiR8LAkl90TdLEX0yAND79yaijRvvJRG0oLfcTqZbC0Fy/1AUQ+WAtN4lKebTU8aMIVQRpTgPNnO0LjPzOdqhSGdEkwYIFmnEFTqESawHodCZ5xdu1344HY2WGvnTcj6pJOA4WH78FQrKCuHSgJTXlapHGaajCWR/MpKkM25mV+nw7nKegYm6obzgpJmG7sNPaNHiIGMLLCkpVfLr9SW3IbpyayZhFOCo1FyaiYlIN/M4rLtHpIg
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=13ac6.55ddb8f3.k1508; bh=dh/WGNgZalfL3c5/+0gF9LLPtDj3GWh9pWYPT4x0n7I=; b=mOwQS1v705Qu7I0Fhuh4q8Puq9X6fj9kinppAhq107UDd7N5K19bvrkTl+q8ymHAMDjkdkWBNx2GiPkywt226dH/53wp1VWhofjxS955FTvl15HCNPdNvSC6HbGrSjRmxfFvDoddQILFvCIV/5ph6uPPfF1/QfEmBDvFR86MGep3+v1L+LTxJvPuIlgUgp5Z4pV4bbBV+4EjvgaaKegBkq8mvBi0E17tbKGpJvqGNFdYNfoiTZ37pyYAMtt9TDer
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 26 Aug 2015 13:02:43 -0000
Date: 26 Aug 2015 09:02:25 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1508260844410.37319@ary.lan>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Eliot Lear" <lear@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <55DD72CE.40403@cisco.com>
References: <20150825214212.60865.qmail@ary.lan> <55DD72CE.40403@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/L2UjZNrkUEi1lqUINY2G0qU6P64>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Our impossible job, was Where we're at/going forward
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: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:02:28 -0000

> The problem is that you continue to treat this proposal as three.  It's 
> not.  It's one integrated proposal.  Further, a binary decision will 
> eventually be made.  Ours is as follows: do we support it or not, and 
> why or why not?  Does the ICG have more information if we simply support 
> only our portion of the proposal?  I would say not.  They gain a little 
> information if we tell them that they haven't cocked it up.  But a very 
> little more.  We have the opportunity to say more.  If we pass on that 
> opportunity, the decision will be ceded to others; and we may not like 
> their view or their goals at all.

Now I'm really confused.  If we as think the parameters and numbers are OK 
but the names are headed for trouble, what do we say in what capacities?

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.