Re: [Ianaplan] Where we're at/going forward

[Martin J. Dürst <[e-mail]>]

Hello Leslie, others,

On 2015/08/26 01:52, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote:

> Speaking as one co-chair of this group (i.e., Marc may have a different
> perspective), I believe:
>
> 1.  The interim meeting produced a good starting text, but there have
> been substantive issues raised on the list since the meeting, which were
> not addressed during the meeting.  We can’t roll back to the text from
> the interim without addressing those issues.

I agree. I haven't ready the full proposal, and I don't have time to 
read it. I'm not sure where exactly I'd fall in evaluating it (on the 
spectrum between John Klensin and Eliot Lear).

My guess is that this is similar for (mostly silent) the majority of the 
members of this group. But that's not for me to judge.

I'd personally prefer that it be made clear that we (this group, the 
IETF as a whole) don't express anything about the proposal as a whole, 
except where it affects our activities. Any of the many texts that make 
this clear would be fine for me.


> 2. Those issues largely have to deal with clarity about scope of this
> WG’s comments.  As I noted on Friday,  we have a charter item to review
> the whole proposal but only in the light of the protocol parameter
> function.  This does not take anything away from our individual right
> and responsibility to review the whole proposal, and it also does not
> touch the fact that the IETF as a whole may have a broader
> responsibility to review the whole proposal, in the light of the future
> of the IANA entity in its entirety.   If people want to address that
> (the IETF’s larger response), they are welcome to address their comments
> in the appropriate forum, which is not this WG.  (I’m guessing it would
> be [e-mail], or anywhere the IAB designates).

I may be totally wrong, but my understanding was that [e-mail] wasn't 
subscribable, or publicly archived. I haven't found any hint/link to 
subscription instructions or an archive at https://www.iab.org, but I 
may not have looked carefully enough.

If the above is correct, I guess that [e-mail] would be way more 
appropriate for discussing the IETF's larger response.


> Those of you who were on the call on Friday will recall that I urged
> that the WG’s statement be encapsulated (but clearly identified) in
> whatever total response the IAB sends on behalf of the IETF.  Consensus
> on the call was that the WG should send its own, scoped message
> directly.   That’s the path I articulated in my note after the call, but
> I’ll observe that the approach is also up for consensus confirmation on
> the list.

Either is fine with me.

Regards,   Martin.