Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

On 2015/05/19 02:59, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> Again, the IETF consensus is that we are satisfied with current arrangements.

That's definitely true. But my understanding would be that this is the 
position of the IETF starting from only the status quo before the whole 
process, i.e. without information about what the other bodies/functions 
want/need/desire/prefer.

It would have been a big waste of time for the IETF to 
discuss/describe/list, purely theoretically, other arrangements that 
might also satisfy us, also because the IETF was the first of the three 
bodies to express its consensus.

However, as far as I understand, that doesn't, at least not in theory, 
exclude that the IETF could be satisfied with other arrangements (e.g. 
in the way/extent that Russ has expressed it). There has been no 
consensus call on that, and so we simply don't know.


> Reading this, it seems like there are too many missing details about the board at this point to really be able to provide an opinion.

That's of course very much true. My guess is that one reason the 
information we received got sent our way at this stage is to test the 
waters.


Regards,   Martin.