Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process

Seun Ojedeji <> Tue, 27 January 2015 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D4B1A1AF1 for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:19:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KkpCvLLXq0Mw for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:19:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D63B1A1AF9 for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:19:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z107so9701062qgd.11 for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:19:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=7AL4XrSpbHXNMEyavYSBgWOvovEjTl1V71ukJWKHslQ=; b=BJKlwsgDqGqAEF05iGsT7Jst6f//VuD56kzZhdgOW/h6qk8Y3MH6zG6OjMjwPKd04N VfFYxt25xU4DYGftl1O9LMjrrJ49WqFghUFOPtAVGHd5TEoHuervf3dFdoiPNjIhY05C b9egT4EEVybqjw/K8CoH+rWUoLLf8Sy88/ee4hcAfGcgnUJPd38OuwYSFizWgA6gOYAd xoqqJ4/wN8FXGJs+J8AS4yZYF5V9mo9C8gC0nK3FsYVLiV42uJNs7hXNIj1hUU1SuS1X R2VImedpMLOKZzhTpQcRzYr9O+XU2NS3FxIg7gPdAAz2GtDJt/1VHTex6G0padTpaVar U8Gw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id z7mr2868618qcf.21.1422321548378; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:19:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:19:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:19:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 02:19:07 +0100
Message-ID: <>
From: Seun Ojedeji <>
To: Jari Arkko <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11341e5ca5c75f050d980ad0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 01:19:12 -0000

Thanks for this Jari, it's helpful summary


sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 27 Jan 2015 01:27, "Jari Arkko" <>; wrote:

> I’d like to suggest a constructive way forward.
> First, I think we should observe that the ICG process put the planning and
> proposal efforts on purpose into the community processes. Those are the
> processes that we run. They are probably not perfect, they are certainly
> not the only possible ones, but they are processes that have existed and
> evolved for decades. The IANA transition is not an opportunity to redefine
> these processes.
> Second, the community has had a very clear opinion about matters, and
> re-opening discussions is not good practice. As usual, there are some issue
> where agreement was not universal. Disagreement with otherwise broad
> consensus is not grounds for re-opening a discussion.
> Third, I want everyone to focus on the concept that we’ve completed a step
> but that is not the last one. Among other things, the transition might
> involve some contract-termination/negotiation/renegotiation. And even if it
> would be very convenient, even IETF consensus doesn’t allow us to sign
> stuff in the name of other organisations :-) Or resolve conflicts between
> the three community proposals. So I would suggest that we stick to our
> clear direction from the WG, sit back, and see what these additional steps
> will bring. We will see updates as ICG, IAOC, and others have something to
> say, and any changes of direction will obviously need community feedback.
> Fourth, I wanted to go a bit back to the original e-mail that started this
> thread (finally!). As noted above, I think it would be inappropriate to
> start redefining the IETF process, and I think we’ve provided far more
> explanation about where we are and why than we’ve done in the approval
> process of most other IETF documents. One of the features of the IETF
> process is the expectation that most participants usually track the
> development of the community opinion, and conclusions are usually
> understood even before they are formally made. And when those conclusions
> get made, they can be brief, as the full discussion is visible on the
> mailing list archive.
> Yet, I have been talking to Milton and he has a point about communities
> understanding their own process well, but it being more difficult for
> newcomers, and in particular, complete outsiders that view the events
> later. I’d like to suggest that we produce an informal explanation of the
> process that helps provide visibility to people at large about what
> happened in the development of the IETF proposal from IANAPLAN WG. This is
> not a rerun of the process, an official document, or an opportunity to
> re-open discussions, but I think it would help us in the coming months as
> more people will be asking about our proposals. I’ll work with the chairs
> to produce that.
> Jari
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list