[Ianaplan] IETF IANAPLAN WG input to the ICG submitted
"Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> Fri, 04 September 2015 15:35 UTC
Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
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 468BD1B3BE8 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 08:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 hmT9jOwV1XBX for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 08:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCBD71B421F for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 08:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [206.123.31.98] (kuwa.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.98]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B3D846E46; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 11:34:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
To: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 11:33:51 -0400
Message-ID: <F9782C6E-1BF9-4D95-9513-21EC096017EE@viagenie.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/kLlDmMatY9xmt4KxzDz3t6ol1oU>
Cc: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
Subject: [Ianaplan] IETF IANAPLAN WG input to the ICG submitted
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, 04 Sep 2015 15:35:53 -0000
Hello, the co-chairs have submitted the text to the ICG, as shown below: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-public-archive-of-submitted-comments/ https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission28.pdf Regards, Marc&Leslie On 31 Aug 2015, at 9:18, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks, all, for the engaged discussion and suggestions to follow up > the IANAPLAN virtual interim meeting and proposed response to the ICG > request for comments on the combined IANA transition proposal. We are > declaring consensus on the following text (same as I last shared, > copied for ease of reference): > > The IETF IANAPLAN WG has reviewed the draft ICG proposal within the > context of the WG’s charter (<ref>) — specifically, “Should > proposals > made by other communities regarding the transition of other IANA > functions affect the IETF protocol parameter registries or the IETF, > the > WG may also review and comment on them.” The IETF IANAPLAN working > group continues to believe that a transition away from a US Government > role in IANA management and oversight is appropriate and confirms > consensus of its participants that the draft proposal is not perceived > to pose problems for the Protocol Parameters function or to interfere > with > the development or safe use of IETF standards. 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. > > > Leslie. > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Leslie Daigle > Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises > ldaigle@thinkingcat.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > On 26 Aug 2015, at 12:45, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> There seems to be some support that this version of text may >> acceptably address our mandate and scoping. >> >> Again (still), 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. >> P.S.: Copying and pasting without quoting, to accommodate various >> mail clients: >> >> The IETF IANAPLAN WG has reviewed the draft ICG proposal within the >> context of the WG’s charter (<ref>) — specifically, “Should >> proposals >> made by other communities regarding the transition of other IANA >> functions affect the IETF protocol parameter registries or the IETF, >> the >> WG may also review and comment on them.” The IETF IANAPLAN >> working >> group continues to believe that a transition away from a US >> Government >> role in IANA management and oversight is appropriate and confirms >> consensus of its participants that the draft proposal is not >> perceived >> to pose problems for the Protocol Parameters function or to interfere >> with >> the development or safe use of IETF standards. 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. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Leslie Daigle >> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises >> ldaigle@thinkingcat.com >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> On 26 Aug 2015, at 11:26, Jari Arkko wrote: >> >>>> >>>> The IETF IANAPLAN WG has reviewed the draft ICG proposal within the >>>> context of the WG’s charter (<ref>) — specifically, “Should >>>> proposals >>>> made by other communities regarding the transition of other IANA >>>> functions affect the IETF protocol parameter registries or the >>>> IETF, the >>>> WG may also review and comment on them.” The IETF IANAPLAN >>>> working >>>> group continues to believe that a transition away from a US >>>> Government >>>> role in IANA management and oversight is appropriate and confirms >>>> consensus of its participants that the draft proposal is not >>>> perceived >>>> to pose problems for the Protocol Parameters function or to >>>> interfere with >>>> the development or safe use of IETF standards. 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 would work for me. >>> >>> (We’re trying to find a very fine balance between how well the >>> overall setup works for us vs. claiming something about the details >>> of parts that do not affect us. Perhaps understandably, finding the >>> right words is difficult. But I think this or something along these >>> lines would be reasonable and accurate.) >>> >>> Jari >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ianaplan mailing list >>> Ianaplan@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ianaplan mailing list >> Ianaplan@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan > > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
- [Ianaplan] IETF IANAPLAN WG input to the ICG subm… Marc Blanchet