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

"Pete Resnick" <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Thu, 04 September 2014 02:59 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.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 02D641A6F2B; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 19:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 QoYDoq_si3bt; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 19:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060811A0473; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 19:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p6
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20140904025929.18297.90860.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 19:59:29 -0700
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/QSV-IqQHykUBcPfCKbxpbU-xDr4
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 05:16:43 -0700
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, iana-strategy@i1b.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
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 02:59:33 -0000

Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-04: Abstain

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ianaplan/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry for the late review. I've got two concerns. Normally, if I was on
the call, I would BLOCK for the moment so that we could discuss these.
But I'm highly unlikely to be on the call tomorrow. So I'm putting in an
ABSTAIN, since barring other info I really think these should be dealt
with. I hope I'll be able to get to email in the morning, see people's
responses (or agreements to make changes) and I'll switch to YES. I may
be able to sneak onto the call for a short bit. But if not, I don't want
to block going forward if you feel like these issues have been properly
addressed. I hope you will address these issues before approving the
charter.

1:

   However, the mechanisms required to address the removal of the
   overarching NTIA contract may require additional documentation or
   agreements.

This leaves the impression that the WG is chartered to create "additional
documentation or agreements." I don't think that's true. I think you
should probably add to this:

   The WG will identify, but not create, such required agreements.

2:

OLD
   Some parts of the transition proposal may need to document 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 ready for submission
   as part of the final proposal.

This sort of undid the bit that was in -03 which said that the WG need
not put these things into it's output RFC. I don't see any discussion on
the list as to why this changed. Not only that, it (for the first time in
the charter) refers to "the transition proposal". The work item at the
top of "Tasks" is a "document that describes the expected interaction
between the IETF and the operator". Now we're talking about "proposals".
I suggest the following change:

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 also think the first milestone should be updated similarly to not talk
in terms of the "proposal".