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 <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Tue, 25 August 2015 15:29 UTC
Return-Path: <seun.ojedeji@gmail.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 92A701B3472 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 rNbWUUmDWxZC for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAD9B1B33F7 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbfr1 with SMTP id fr1so144830171obb.1 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=3lofM6Xi5lKqT+n21JXUwWDJMCT6VehuJFnr56+y03Y=; b=wnI8LQxkmovdvLj2V/GLculmv9AfJMpy/50opNxUaHcGmykaZcVOKB7lGYFppGEDiO /zR7QeA0s47wfCio3l3+dDzD2tgWqCVpzvS2YbAf4BlReC39EpDIB8Jj8fjkGqzMnGtb h3/3OdNKniD0V+bUtVYqw6NTvZ9BbWH0G16YkPRA4mOmwtUSPuyN+o9Uca42cNytgKNE hws6mloKWdmJC1fOtDhEObnc+TGF6bA1Oj7BH2HwWBK7bK5ABi82yD7loi5RENgEqK9A Eg0BRZHiNFZyrNdPngU6KhKqWqfdb0lHdg/UtVXeGf4hvj8ZH6KEpvpTCcFscWJJynuy sigg==
X-Received: by 10.60.124.35 with SMTP id mf3mr28363023oeb.15.1440516572390; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.35.136 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <A619F46842E0B3A5C0C9A9D4@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
References: <A619F46842E0B3A5C0C9A9D4@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:29:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6gCmaHyM80jgRRTjU81tP0qdmAkYZ3aw=rHMUyQMwP0bQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b5d34c8972c52051e2466d3"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/htdvn4SrvncpDgiGo10mg7BpF8o>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Subject: 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)
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: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:29:34 -0000
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:13 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote: > > > (2) The WG needs to make statements only within its scope and > qualifications and, if it offers additional opinions, to clearly > identify and separate the two. If that approach is followed, it > is probably appropriate that the WG take a position but we need > to be clear that is not an IETF position. > I believe this makes sense and is understandable. I believe however that its been mentioned that the charter allows this WG to make statement on other proposal but the question now is whether its doing that on behalf of IETF or not. I guess the answer to that would be to ask whether the oversight transition proposal developed and submitted to the ICG by this working group was done on behalf of IETF? If the answer is NO then it will be good to know who/which entity within IETF is officially chartered to participate in this transition process. I have been told that the IAB will provide a more detailed response, will that be seen as the IETF's view as well? If Yes then i would be fine with the "no-comment" approach of this working group as her comment may longer be necessary. Regards > > john > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
- Re: [Ianaplan] One more attempt at text (Re: Upda… John C Klensin
- Re: [Ianaplan] One more attempt at text (Re: Upda… Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Ianaplan] One more attempt at text (Re: Upda… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Ianaplan] One more attempt at text (Re: Upda… Seth Johnson