Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

We do our work on IETF mailing lists, and you have previously written,
your concerns do not attach to the IETF.

Eliot



On 8/25/15 8:15 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
>
> I cannot agree to that because I do not support the proposal as a
> whole going forward. You can look at the ICG site to see why I don’t
> support it.
>
>  
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
>  
>
> *From:*Eliot Lear [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 25, 2015 08:14
> *To:* Richard Hill; 'Brian E Carpenter'; 'Stephen Farrell'; 'Leslie
> Daigle (ThinkingCat)'; 'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'
> *Cc:* 'Marc Blanchet'
> *Subject:* Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind
> Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review
>
>  
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> As I wrote, some of us HAVE read the other community proposals.  But
> in the spirit of compromise here is what I propose:
>
> While the IANAPLAN WG has not discussed the other two community
> proposals in depth, we support the ICG proposal being advanced on the
> whole.  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.
>
> How is that?
>
> Eliot
>
> On 8/25/15 8:10 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
>
>     Both Brian and I have made the point that the initial proposal could be misunderstood to mean that this group has evaluated and supports the non-protocol parts of the proposal. That is a substantial objection.
>
>      
>
>     Best,
>
>     Richard
>
>      
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>
>         From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[e-mail]]
>
>         Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 07:59
>
>         To: Richard Hill; 'Brian E Carpenter'; 'Stephen Farrell'; 'Leslie
>
>         Daigle (ThinkingCat)'; 'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'
>
>         Cc: 'Marc Blanchet'
>
>         Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind
>
>         Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review
>
>          
>
>         But you have yet to raise a substantial objection to what was initially
>
>         proposed.
>
>          
>
>         On 8/25/15 7:58 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
>
>             Building on Brian's proposal that the less said, the better, an
>
>         alternative would be to drop the first sentence altogether, so that the
>
>         text would read:
>
>              
>
>             “Regarding the draft ICG proposal, 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.”
>
>              
>
>             Best,
>
>             Richard
>
>              
>
>              
>
>              
>
>                 -----Original Message-----
>
>                 From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
>
>                 Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 00:25
>
>                 To: Stephen Farrell; Eliot Lear; Richard Hill; Leslie Daigle
>
>                 (ThinkingCat); Ianaplan@Ietf. Org
>
>                 Cc: Marc Blanchet
>
>                 Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind
>
>                 Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review
>
>                  
>
>                 On 25/08/2015 08:19, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>                      
>
>                     On 24/08/15 19:03, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
>                         On 8/24/15 7:18 PM, Richard Hill wrote:
>
>                                 That's not my point. My point is that this group has not
>
>                 considered
>
>                                 the other parts of the proposal, nor should it.
>
>                         Andrew has already responded to you on that point.  And some of us
>
>                         *have* considered the text on the whole.
>
>                          
>
>                     I think Eliot is clearly correct here. (Even though I prefer
>
>                     Leslie's text over Eliot's.)
>
>                 Concur. The less said, the better, as far as *this WG* is concerned.
>
>                  
>
>                 I hope and trust that the IAB will tackle the broader issue, and I
>
>                 think the community part of that discussion belongs on
>
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>.
>
>                  
>
>                     Brian
>
>              
>
>          
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Ianaplan mailing list
>
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>  
>