Re: [Ianaplan] One more attempt at text (Re: Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review)

[Seun Ojedeji <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Richard,
>
> On 8/25/15 8:43 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
>
> This group is consistent: it supports the protocols part of the ICG proposal because that part is exactly what this group agreed by rough consensus, and it request that the bit in paragraph 3062 be referenced also elsewhere.
>
> This group has not discussed the other parts of the ICG proposal, so there is no reason why this group should take a position regarding those parts of the proposal.
>
>
> The proposal will either go forward or not.  There are not THREE proposals
> at this point.  Rather there is a single proposal.  In as much as you had
> concerns about the individual components those rightfully belong within the
> components as we have said all along, for the very reasons you did not
> raise those issues here: you were found in the rough in those other
> communities.  Further, as I wrote, a number of us have read all the
> proposals, with an eye toward finding overlap.
>
> At this point in time the issue for the IETF is really quite simple: do we
> want the proposal to go forward or not?  That is what this working group is
> being asked for a position on.
>

This is how i also understand it. The IETF in my opinion is trying too much
to distant itself from the work of the other operational communities and i
don't think its helpful at all.


>   So, one more attempt at text:
>
> The IETF IANAPLAN WG prefers that the ICG proposal be advanced, as no
> concerns have been raised that would impact standards development or the
> operation of the protocol parameters registries.  The IETF raised two
> transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.  We
> would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as
> well.  We take no position on the names or numbers community components.
>
> Again FWIW and if the IETF is actually considering all views, i agree with
the proposed edit above

Regards


>
> Eliot
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: [phone]**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>[e-mail]
<[e-mail]>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !