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

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 22 August 2015 02:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0107D1A0233 for <>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kXP5soKgvZUe for <>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBCE41A0218 for <>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pacdd16 with SMTP id dd16so55753521pac.2 for <>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CXRJnJmF1Z0hBt/VJRwm0RMeonKgGHaGgt017ViCYuI=; b=ulWKCz65JDCk5lMiwOlEAWnOqnwXhOUtE1H3uI5SxfT9i0IdG6QhCE5V8fr8pJNhxD RdhPVXbuoDlRFyxPiHaWkMjajPTUqM6EBVOtHGoHUTECl08CpGg9LHhqHPSXIDDy1IZr UJBST0wYxY5dxuK6dMaw6FMsV9E8t67LKBTJynjXRilk8KSIoCzRV/G9M5sA5ddzJe+i bjaHH+Kp6UH+vv3YSG3xmoPLakEx8iHM8ePUoursur1q8F2/gukI43QjRY5DgvbwX4Yf cc3HNB3a1AK3GPfFsNK4ntvrnY/LarMDAwQFdSaNtaD/Yh4ePj67hRi7+4ZBxW8LfKtX QVWw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id xe5mr2384337pab.32.1440210969320; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:7836:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:7836:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id bz1sm9233178pbb.85.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 14:36:15 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eliot Lear <>, Richard Hill <>, "'Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)'" <>
References: <> <018901d0dc22$4efb3870$ecf1a950$@ch> <> <01a801d0dc24$531bab40$f95301c0$@ch> <> <020001d0dc2c$b5514ba0$1ff3e2e0$@ch> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'" <>, 'Marc Blanchet' <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 02:36:11 -0000

On 22/08/2015 04:25, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> On 8/21/15 6:16 PM, Richard Hill wrote:
>> The problem is that by supporting the entire proposal you are also taking a position on the names and addressing proposals. And it seems to me that that goes beyond the mandate of this group.
> I disagree.  At the end of the day, the proposal goes in as a single
> proposal.  NTIA doesn't get to evaluate a part of a proposal.  What I
> think is important here is to ask this question: what part of the
> proposal will cause the IETF trouble?  if the answer is none, then we
> should be comfortable saying that.

So, let's analyse that, *assuming* that our two "Paragraph 3062" reservations
are brought up front. What will cause us trouble of a kind that we aren't
already potentially exposed to? The only thing I can see is that there
will be one more link in the formal management chain between us and the
people doing the actual work of IANA. But since our deal already includes
direct contact with the workers for day-to-day actions, where's the trouble?

Based on that, I support the proposed response. However, to avoid any
over-interpretation, maybe the first sentence could be slightly qualified:
"The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal going forward
as far as the Protocol Parameters function is concerned."