[Ianaplan] Pete Resnick's Abstain on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-04: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 04 September 2014 07:39 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 D50AA1A6F1A; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 00:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 FK0lj1ET8kII; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 00:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22d.google.com (mail-lb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D2221A6F26; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 00:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f173.google.com with SMTP id c11so11009702lbj.32 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 00:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=R4HN6/Cqt50guDntfQTBXjOB3qww7eFqBx9bHHMLE0Y=; b=Py+NsIj3Ytrg4Jj1Xn0Vb6cgJ4EYbw2Oq3QGimEgH/gmS2k4f2LAUSC3FHiJweJaXm SkChtY7ivyrpnA3haVvkKwIT8M27MgF0iB4nimNzGEw11BazaFbpoyMpPQx1ykokl0G2 ehkfDjvj8b349X7jBARXEJxatBz+HZFgwxzsNvBwdquknbjQW4jDiZTMR2AZExBrHgKV 2sVYGyV4T5BzNrfEUAAzJJJGByN9DZ1+smEvXMw1Gs0c3q6Xuf4ayd1DduFLZR93tZ++ Ia1hMVAm+IFOK0SlWGxfPo481XSWAcpjmoDt2+LuNuX6ImM2H4vlYaXYDx3dngNG2M2m WZ0w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.169.35 with SMTP id ab3mr2439571lbc.41.1409816351559; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 00:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.1.106 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 00:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <116748A8-0D2A-4EF0-98DE-BEACFB68692C@piuha.net>
References: <20140904025929.18297.90860.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <116748A8-0D2A-4EF0-98DE-BEACFB68692C@piuha.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 10:39:11 +0300
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8C-ZeM_Y7DOqDMP81qTgeoily8U
Message-ID: <CALaySJKaBB4nqf3Lb45utgxUBYJYjh=en=zt3QotBHtzOtcnMQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2696ad557530502387262"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/Q5AWRSZKhJB5GYUl20ZBapgjNw4
Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, "iana-strategy@i1b.org" <iana-strategy@i1b.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: [Ianaplan] Pete Resnick's Abstain on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-04: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 07:39:16 -0000

I agree with Pete's suggestion on the first point, and with Jari's
modification on the second point.

On Eliot's mesage:
On Thursday, September 4, 2014, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

> How will this working group charter allow the working group to produce
> something that allows you and Alissa to stand behind a given proposal and
> say that the IETF supports it?  The first sentence of deliverables section
> suggests, rather that the group will produce RFC 6220 or an update, which
> it is then not allowed to do.
>

I don't see it as implying any update to 6220.  And I think the charter
says that the WG will produce a document describing what we need from the
transition, with IETF consensus behind it.  Isn't that what Jari and Alissa
need?

> Also, please keep in mind that according to that ICG draft we have about
> 2 months and 28 days to move on all of this.

Indeed, the schedule is tight.
 All the more reason to get this chartered, and to give the chairs a
running start.

 Barry


On Thursday, September 4, 2014, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jari.arkko@piuha.net');>> wrote:

> Thanks for your careful (as always) review, Pete :-)
>
> >   The WG will identify, but not create, such required agreements.
>
> Personally, I think that is reasonable. What do others think?
>
> > NEW
> >   Fully documenting the interaction between the IETF and the operator
> >   of IETF protocol parameters registries may require detailed terms of
> >   agreements or other details of procedures that are normally delegated
> >   to and handled by the IAB or IAOC. The working group will not attempt
> >   to produce or discuss documentation for these details, but will
> >   request the IAB or IAOC to provide them, either to be included as an
> >   appendix to the WG's output document, or in a separate document
> >   provided by the IAB or IAOC.
>
> I'm fine with the rationale for the change and most of your text, but I
> have trouble understanding the last parts. What if we simply said ".... but
> will request the IAB or IAOC to provide them separately."?
>
> > I also think the first milestone should be updated similarly to not talk
> > in terms of the "proposal".
>
> Ok.
>
> Jari
>
>