Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response

["Richard Hill" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Jari,

Thank for this, and please see embedded comments below.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: jeudi, 25. décembre 2014 19:41
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Ianaplan@Ietf. Org; IETF-Discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for
> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response
>
>
> Richard,
>
> Thanks for your note. (Reproduced at the end of this e-mail for
> the benefit of
> others, just in case we still have an issue with the list not
> accepting your
> e-mails. I apologize for the trouble on that, by the way.)
>
> I wanted to acknowledge the reception of your note, and the
> reception of the
> earlier requests, including the one requesting the co-chairs to
> provide (further)
> justification for their conclusions.

Since you say "further justification", it seems that I missed something,
because I don't recall seeing the justification from the co-chairs for the
rough consensus call.  Perhaps you could point me to it?

>I also wanted to say that those were
> considered as a part of the process. A big part of the IESG’s role in
> approving output from the IETF is making sure that the community
> has been heard and that there’s broad backing for the particular output.
> In this case the IESG has been comfortable with the making the decision
> it has made, having considered the community discussions, including
> your request.

I don't recall seeing any statement from any IESG member to the effect that
he or she had considered my request not to proceed to approve the draft
until the co-chairs had provided a justification for the rough consensus
call.  Perhaps I missed some relevant statements explaining why my request
was considered but rejected.

>Personally, I am quite comfortable with the decisions in
> the WG and IESG stages, and believe that they reflect community
> (rough) consensus.
>
> Hope this helps,

See above.

And please note that the changes I requested to the sheperd write-up with
respect to my statements have not been made (see below), so that write-up
does not correctly reflect what I said during the disussions.

>
> Jari
>
> >> At the end of the working group process, although there was not
> >> unanimous support for the results, the working group chairs
> >> concluded that rough consensus existed in the working group. The
> >> document shepherd’s summary of the WG consensus for this document
> >> can be found here:
> >>
> >>
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/
> >> shepherdwriteup/
> >
> > Please add that I requested that changes be made to that
> writeup so as to
> > reflect correctly my statements.
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >>
> >> 	• Discussion of the rationale for concluding rough
> >> consensus from Richard Hill (responses from Marc Blanchet, Andrew
> >> Sullivan, Milton Muller, Jari Arkko, Brian Carpenter, John
> >> Curran, and Jefsey).
> >
> > Please correct that to state that I requested that the
> co-chairs provide a
> > justification for the rough consensus call.  Unless I missed
> something, the
> > co-chairs did not provide that justification.
> >
> >> Richard was requesting a rationale for why
> >> the conclusion was what it was, or perhaps rather disagreeing
> >> with the rationale that was provided.
> >
> > No, I was requesting a justification of the rough consensus call.
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >>
> >> 	• The IAOC has indicated that they are comfortable with the
> >> direction the document gives for the IAOC.
> >
> > Please add here (or wherever else you think it would fit):
> >
> > * Richard Hill requested that the IESG defer its decision on this draft
> > until the submission by the co-chairs of their justification
> for the rough
> > consensus call.
>
>
>