IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 27 November 2014 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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 E60D51A0161 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:23:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 kcBqlnKaDoCo for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:23:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7C3E1A015F for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:23:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (nat-07-mht.dyndns.com [216.146.45.246]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A3A648A035 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 19:23:06 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:23:05 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20141127192305.GE9228@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEMOCOAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <99539C37-B970-490F-A7ED-9952CFDF1716@viagenie.ca> <547778AE.50302@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <547778AE.50302@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/cuBUECoiW5DxlcqGibT0egrLr5Y
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step
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: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 19:23:09 -0000

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 08:17:02AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Now, that passive tense is a bit confusing, but to my eyes it refers
> to the fact that the chair(s) should make a judgement about validity rather
> than counting votes. Anyway, I believe that the paragraph in the writeup
> that starts "There was a broad suggestion..." does justify the chairs'
> judgement.

Certainly, for whatever it's worth, that was my intention.  My
understanding from the chairs was that in their judgement, the issue
was aired extensively, there were arguments on both sides, and the WG
appeared pretty strongly to coalesce around the text we actually have.
Moreover, while there were arguments on the other side, they were at
odds with the charter and the institutional practices of the IETF, and
therefore they were adequately answered.  I believe the shepherd
write-up says this.  If anyone thinks it does not, I will cheerfully
repeat these remarks in the IETF last call process.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email