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)

On 25 Aug 2015, at 5:15, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> On 8/25/15 8:43 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
>>
>> This group is consistent: it supports the protocols part of the ICG 
>> proposal because that part is exactly what this group agreed by rough 
>> consensus, and it request that the bit in paragraph 3062 be 
>> referenced also elsewhere.
>>
>> This group has not discussed the other parts of the ICG proposal, so 
>> there is no reason why this group should take a position regarding 
>> those parts of the proposal.
>>
>>
>> The proposal will either go forward or not.  There are not THREE 
>> proposals
>> at this point.  Rather there is a single proposal.  In as much as you 
>> had
>> concerns about the individual components those rightfully belong 
>> within the
>> components as we have said all along, for the very reasons you did 
>> not
>> raise those issues here: you were found in the rough in those other
>> communities.  Further, as I wrote, a number of us have read all the
>> proposals, with an eye toward finding overlap.
>>
>> At this point in time the issue for the IETF is really quite simple: 
>> do we
>> want the proposal to go forward or not?  That is what this working 
>> group is
>> being asked for a position on.
>>
>
> This is how i also understand it. The IETF in my opinion is trying too 
> much
> to distant itself from the work of the other operational communities 
> and i
> don't think its helpful at all.

<as individual> I agree with above. We shall demonstrate support of the 
overall initiative.

Marc.

>
>
>> So, one more attempt at text:
>>
>> The IETF IANAPLAN WG prefers that the ICG proposal be advanced, as no
>> concerns have been raised that would impact standards development or 
>> the
>> operation of the protocol parameters registries.  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.  We take no position on the names or numbers community 
>> components.
>>
>> Again FWIW and if the IETF is actually considering all views, i agree 
>> with
> the proposed edit above
>
> Regards
>
>
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 !