Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 05 November 2014 00:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 E50DD1A1A65 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 16:17:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 I_C9jIaXe6z0 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 16:17:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FC511A1A52 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 16:17:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [50.189.173.0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46CD98A031 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 00:17:36 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 19:17:31 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20141105001731.GA30186@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEOJCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <54594A50.4090305@meetinghouse.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54594A50.4090305@meetinghouse.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/U0v0Rs4oi49m5M_ZB-pPjE369WQ
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
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: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:17:40 -0000

On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 04:51:12PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:

> When it comes to legal, contractual, and governance matters - the IETF is
> more than it's working groups, it includes the IAB, IESG, IAOC, etc (as
> components of the IETF); the ISOC (as "parent" or whatever of the ISOC); and
> arguably the "protocol parameters community" is more than just the IETF.
> These perspectives are reflected, at best, informally, in the charter and
> discussions of the WG.

It seems to me that the IETF has managed to set up all those
organizations except for ISOC.  So what about the IETF makes you think
that it is incapable of drawing conclusions about organizations and
institutional arrangements?

I note that the IAB's opinion is explicitly called out in the existing
draft; and speaking with my IAB hat on just for a moment, I can tell
you that the IAB is in fact paying attention to this document and that
it cannot be published with the claim that the IAB agrees with it
unless the IAB does in fact agree.

The IAOC, of course, is going to need to be able to implement such
advice as the WG delivers.  So we can expect that the diligent members
of the IAOC will also undertake relevant review.

It strikes me that there seem to be some who would like to claim that
more grown-up or professional or serious or what-have-you procedures
-- basically, "more like I would prefer" -- are needed for this
effort.  But the argument for that conclusion appears to be simply
repetition of the claim.  One needs rather a better argument than
abusive _ad hominem_ ("wishy washy" and so on) to be convincing.

I find it interesting that I've been in engineering discussions where,
when people didn't feel that they was getting the desired
result, they started raising questions about the legitimacy for
the group to work on the topic at all.  Perhaps engineering and
contractual-principles discussions are not so different after all.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com