Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Sat, 26 September 2015 02:01 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 BD4CD1ACE43 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 19:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 q4KYo31PD_yE for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 19:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41F261ACE42 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 19:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD552CEA0; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 05:01:33 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aw_AEpbLGdZ0; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 05:01:32 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B8AB2CC6B; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 05:01:32 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_09A681FC-8526-400F-B701-C49A0F2D347F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <3A58359B-420B-4FEC-B812-4659D980C5D3@vigilsec.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 22:01:30 -0400
Message-Id: <D4D8DCEC-6C23-4039-950E-516B90F517A0@piuha.net>
References: <56A1B728-98DF-409A-B2B6-2624F53FE175@cooperw.in> <3A58359B-420B-4FEC-B812-4659D980C5D3@vigilsec.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/ZOMpPBJtkNvUwmCxdjX8_FXCa5M>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 02:01:37 -0000

> I think that we should respond with a very simple confirmation that we plan to continue to coordinate with the other operational communities, but that we do not think that formal processes are necessary to do so.

Yes. And we are. That is, we have always and will continue to coordinate with the other operational communities on matters where coordination is necessary. And that existing coordination models are sufficient.

Jari