Re: [Ianaplan] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-04: (with COMMENT)

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Fri, 05 September 2014 07:42 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 914BC1A04A1; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 00:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.955
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no
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 p_6koUaDX7pF; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 00:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94A0F1A04B0; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 00:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A852CC5F; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:42:32 +0300 (EEST)
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 tlRwjcPVWldV; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:42:28 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F642CC48; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:42:28 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F94A21CC-E44A-4A9E-AC34-FA4BF7D5BBF0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <DCEA0F3F-594F-4802-B2DB-C35BC8E7204F@vigilsec.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 10:42:27 +0300
Message-Id: <2CF57913-A4DD-4FCD-907C-B9927EE17708@piuha.net>
References: <20140904132124.24134.4210.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <DCEA0F3F-594F-4802-B2DB-C35BC8E7204F@vigilsec.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/_OxJFp4lAk7LTdjTajCpdqo2MH0
Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, iana-strategy@i1b.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-04: (with COMMENT)
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: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 07:42:38 -0000

Yes, I think that is right. But I would like to leave the text as is - with some freedom of interpretation for the chairs.

Jari

On 04 Sep 2014, at 16:49, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:

> I'd like to see it published as an RFC at the point in time that the proposal is actually submitted to NTIA.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> 
>> Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
>> charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-04: No Objection
>> 
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ianaplan/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Notwithstanding that "IETF consensus document" normally means "an RFC on
>> which there has been IETF last call and where there is consensus for
>> publication" I feel that
>>  The IANAPLAN working group is chartered to produce an IETF consensus
>>  document
>> needs to be clarified since it leave ambiguity as to whether an RFC is
>> the intended output. there are three options (pick one!)
>> - "...that will be published as an RFC"
>> - "...that may be published as an RFC"
>> - "...that will be produced as an Internet-Draft and submitted to the
>> ICANN thingy committee when consensus has been reached."
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> In view of Joel's comment about timeliness, I wonder whether
>> micro-management through the milestones might be helpful.
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan