Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Fri, 21 August 2015 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
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 B26AE1ABB1A for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 3CTynDIOJP99 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-sh2.infomaniak.ch (smtp-sh2.infomaniak.ch [128.65.195.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 237791ABC75 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp3.infomaniak.ch (smtp3.infomaniak.ch [84.16.68.91]) by smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7LF1biA006613 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:01:37 +0200
Received: from RHillNew (adsl-178-38-34-52.adslplus.ch [178.38.34.52]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp3.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7LF1WoP027553; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:01:32 +0200
From: "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: "'Leslie Daigle \(ThinkingCat\)'" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, "'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
References: <95236452-2600-473E-B326-8AB8242484B4@thinkingcat.com>
In-Reply-To: <95236452-2600-473E-B326-8AB8242484B4@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:01:45 +0200
Message-ID: <018901d0dc22$4efb3870$ecf1a950$@ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
thread-index: AdDcHpH6rSLq4x85TIaQlqosW7iaVQAA4SHQ
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: Dr.Web (R) for Unix mail servers drweb plugin ver.6.0.2.8
X-Antivirus-Code: 0x100000
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/fgukOFxGr9SDGc9KM88GuOFudqA>
Cc: 'Marc Blanchet' <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 21 Aug 2015 15:01:45 -0000

Please note that I do not agree with this. I have many objections to the combined ICG proposal, even if not specifically with the protocols part of that proposal.

So I object to this.

Thanks and best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Leslie
> Daigle (ThinkingCat)
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 16:35
> To: Ianaplan@Ietf. Org
> Cc: Marc Blanchet
> Subject: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal
> review
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As noted in the minutes from today’s IANAPLAN WG virtual interim
> meeting, participants agreed on a brief message in support of the
> collected ICG proposal.
> 
> While the IAB is preparing a wider response, the proposal is that the
> IANAPLAN WG will communicate to the ICG the following message related
> to the IANAPLAN’s work output (part of the IETF contribution):
> 
> “The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal going
> forward.  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.”
> 
> This message is to confirm WG consensus on the proposed action via this
> e-mail list.  All WG participants are encouraged to review the meeting
> minutes for further elaboration of the discussion around this text.  If
> you have any disagreement with it, please share your comment to this
> list by noon EDT (16h00 UTC) Friday August 28, 2015.
> 
> Thanks,
> Leslie, for Leslie&Marc.
> 
> --
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leslie Daigle
> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
> ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan