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

Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Mon, 19 January 2015 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mueller@syr.edu>
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 841C21B2AFD for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:29:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.209
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 3HqdZ5l1FdWQ for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:29:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.syr.edu (smtp2.syr.edu [128.230.18.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 467FF1B2ACC for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:29:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EX13-MBX-06.ad.syr.edu (ex13-mbx-06.ad.syr.edu [128.230.108.137]) by smtp2.syr.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t0JGTHbO026692 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:29:18 -0500
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) by EX13-MBX-06.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.137) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:29:11 -0500
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) by EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:29:11 -0500
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
To: "'Bernard Aboba'" <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
Thread-Index: AQHQNAAqcIVzsC+sC0aaK4lbuzHCbJzHnmnA
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:29:10 +0000
Message-ID: <d9950a624b024dc9b77fc359b18481f0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C172BBB7-9BA4-4BA7-848C-C7FE5B66CBF7@cooperw.in> <8B1EC865-AD1F-4165-8C3A-258BA18C4823@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8B1EC865-AD1F-4165-8C3A-258BA18C4823@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [128.230.182.126]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_d9950a624b024dc9b77fc359b18481f0EX13MBX13adsyredu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-01-19_02:2015-01-19,2015-01-19,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1501190166
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/WEAYvizPpaRn3BwQMtXFE-gmDtM>
Cc: "'ianaplan@ietf.org'" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:29:22 -0000

I agree with Bernard. I think Richard’s claim that the proposal is incomplete or ambiguous in certain critical respects has more substance than the process concern.

A fairly small number of people were actively involved here but the preponderance seemed to like the document as it came out. Rough consensus was achieved in the end game by asking for formal acknowledgments from ICANN regarding the protocol-related IANA functions and by making it clear that the IAOC could take up some of the loose ends. At least, that’s what made me go along. That rough consensus doesn’t mean the proposal is complete, however.

The top-down vs. bottom up issue would be more significant if the top were acting in conflict with a larger portion of the bottom but the leadership seemed to have some minor differences among themselves and what we came up with was acceptable to most.

--MM

From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 10:54 AM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process

I would note that both of the concerns listed are under consideration by the IAOC. Also, the proposals from the other communities also include mention of both items. So while it is fair to say that the issues require more work, I do not believe they are process concerns in this WG.