Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Fri, 19 December 2014 08:18 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 AC2C11A6F20; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:18:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 l291aIPONMn2; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:17:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.infomaniak.ch (smtp3.infomaniak.ch [IPv6:2001:1600:2:5:92b1:1cff:fe01:147]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 601601A886D; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:17:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Laurie (adsl-178-38-202-237.adslplus.ch [178.38.202.237]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp3.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBJ8Hlns007237; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 09:17:47 +0100
From: "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 09:17:41 +0100
Message-ID: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNGEGBCPAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <21730E2D-5F0B-45AE-A763-6F61F8AF5D1B@piuha.net>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/OosUGVazOJt2jqH3Sb3jKr0nw9c
Cc: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response.all@tools.ietf.org, IETF-Discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: rhill@hill-a.ch
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: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:18:01 -0000

Dear Jari,

Thank you for this and please see embedded comments below.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: jeudi, 18. décembre 2014 19:54
> To: Ianaplan@Ietf. Org
> Cc: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response.all@tools.ietf.org; IETF-Discussion
> list
> Subject: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for
> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response
>
>
> This is a summary of the last call and conclusion from the IESG
> processing of this draft.
>
> At the end of the working group process, although there was not
> unanimous support for the results, the working group chairs
> concluded that rough consensus existed in the working group. The
> document shepherd’s summary of the WG consensus for this document
> can be found here:
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/
> shepherdwriteup/

Please add that I requested that changes be made to that writeup so as to
reflect correctly my statements.

SNIP

>
> 	• Discussion of the rationale for concluding rough
> consensus from Richard Hill (responses from Marc Blanchet, Andrew
> Sullivan, Milton Muller, Jari Arkko, Brian Carpenter, John
> Curran, and Jefsey).

Please correct that to state that I requested that the co-chairs provide a
justification for the rough consensus call.  Unless I missed something, the
co-chairs did not provide that justification.

>Richard was requesting a rationale for why
> the conclusion was what it was, or perhaps rather disagreeing
> with the rationale that was provided.

No, I was requesting a justification of the rough consensus call.

SNIP

>
> 	• The IAOC has indicated that they are comfortable with the
> direction the document gives for the IAOC.

Please add here (or wherever else you think it would fit):

* Richard Hill requested that the IESG defer its decision on this draft
until the submission by the co-chairs of their justification for the rough
consensus call.

>
> Jari Arkko, the sponsoring Area Director for
> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response
>