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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 27 January 2015 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 8FDFF1A8776 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 01:20:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 6_ktp8dV2qnm for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 01:20:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D3FA1A8831 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 01:20:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1637; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1422350424; x=1423560024; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to; bh=LadWxcFSJiHPLNZDTYYed4CHMAW4w2q2SxTlOU0ZoVo=; b=LrBXxEuaYzbCh2IUI/I9Dj6BsDSVcZFc+na7eKERikgx5dd77jw8eZkt 48vlAvLpT2op5squoxyznQR0PndunDZ9x79PxY6B0mu1OtrWjIPWJ/4IZ ur+YyhlQ6q2DoTyx3bAGZCYC9qgi5g6lqykvxaWCCew/YzxeEIj40lHnq g=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 486
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D8BADfV8dU/xbLJq1ahzHJRwKBaAEBAQEBfYQNAQEDASNbCwshDBUCAg8CRgYBDAgBARCIEAi/CJR2AQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBAQEBG49/CoJegUEBBJBBgSmGJYEVhR+IS4M9IoNvPYJzAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.09,473,1418083200"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="324026296"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2015 09:20:22 +0000
Received: from [10.61.199.226] ([10.61.199.226]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0R9KMkw015786; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:20:22 GMT
Message-ID: <54C7585B.50007@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:20:27 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rhill@hill-a.ch, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>, ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNGECODAAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
In-Reply-To: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNGECODAAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gDiGwpOLCKo5xswivspblRTEB5IbI0bOc"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/Vsjv_cPVVy-5FtUvtpYbkJt_3pA>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
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: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:20:33 -0000

Hi Richard,

On 1/26/15 8:26 PM, Richard Hill wrote:

> My understanding is that the response is supposed to reflect the
> consensus of the global multi-stakeholder community. So the IETF, as I
> understand it, is supposed to consult and take into account the views
> of that broad community. 


While I am tempted to rebut your statement, I think it would be bad form
to do so until we have determined an answer to this question: can you
explain how we are not re-litigating the RFP itself, the agreement on
the charter, and the resulting work?  I ask because I don't see how
discussing any of those three is going to result in any sort of decision
making by this group.

Eliot