Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net> Mon, 01 June 2015 21:38 UTC

Return-Path: <bensons@queuefull.net>
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 C54331A0062 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 lpebWKErMBeF for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com (mail-ig0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) (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 269CE1A005C for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbhj9 with SMTP id hj9so72279499igb.1 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=DFBcU5X7SRWf6F4D+jweEEnFlNVcslxLpbFQ7XWNG54=; b=WJYhxOpRrleGB/AoIDEIwMTirSu/+BN9cM/w68Z9u8rHVynlTh4tmHneLDfOh+HlaB GnQ/uogRsJ+EQe3jH08KvnAWt6As6kh4tzvIEQEme+o61z1vvi/lxwp1K/+j0f+TKa+g EGpj2Dwq1pnr5MkGZWNvLppQLj3e7KJ3Yhftko75hwK5Z/rKypQUczAGDAcINbdDUmVG 5AJMF6hcL3myKnvPXFrQ2Bo5T14DfveuOppEkORDLEJ84zr+2yS9xAsylAKQIcdXYhfy EsCM7CSzQkNJekwWSCxSXbiUrt3+7sPrz0DLIkrf0mruflBqg5d9PVGX7eTDTHvOEYVv Kk0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlKnIvdEZI+2Q0XJl7XpsbXchf5ievov44yZVJ4pmvekK+BUj37g3tI3oNT8ddQqyRE1vRl
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.46.94 with SMTP id i91mr24970944ioo.68.1433194706386; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.11.16 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <556CBF1F.20503@gmail.com>
References: <D15A3C14-F268-4CF1-B942-BAE57B281C58@cooperw.in> <556D3AAA-1655-4785-9395-8F6CD0B73E44@vigilsec.com> <5F8F0771-C77B-4D90-811B-501A4EC79268@istaff.org> <893FE3E3-A2DD-40D8-B39F-1EB24DFE1806@vigilsec.com> <97267ED7-D8A2-4A64-AB74-07434190DD89@piuha.net> <CA+9kkMBZq_U+CC5Jzv5T3pL7qasUHSfv-Gu8q4P36+phABXxzg@mail.gmail.com> <4AB120DC-AFB1-4915-B6C5-7417FB989878@piuha.net> <55669A78.3020309@cisco.com> <C8B9D0E8-C363-4618-8941-D0027B86EB7A@piuha.net> <6BCB4C30-034A-4D13-AD89-88B0719DB75C@vigilsec.com> <7B6FC84D-CE19-435F-A87A-87AEF3FDB305@thinkingcat.com> <556CBF1F.20503@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 17:38:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAP4=Vciz9noosd=04mxWineNVYwtESve0991JwGWbmC52OViRA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1136e9f45e615f05177ba545
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/nsoqRHuod_zgjm5e19IiBCOvPC4>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, "Leslie Daigle \(ThinkingCat\)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 21:38:29 -0000

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Leslie,
> On 02/06/2015 01:39, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote:
> >
> > I think the result is shaping up well, and the response should be sent.
> On the question of who signs it:  As I have stated
> > elsewhere — I think it’s great to get the IETF’s input on the response,
> but I don’t see the IANAPLAN WG as having an operational
> > position to commit the IETF on such matters as timeframes for
> implementation.
> >
> > And if it’s not a WG matter, I don’t understand why the WG Chairs would
> sign it.
>
> Concur. If the IETF Chair, the IAB Chair, the IAOC Chair and the Trust
> Chair
> would co-sign it, we'd be in good shape.
>
>
I've been considering this topic, and I think Leslie's perspective and
Brian's proposal are reasonable. But to be honest, I'm comfortable with any
one of the approaches that have been proposed.

My earlier agreement with Russ' proposal stems from the understanding that
the ianaplan chairs were the recipients of the question. As such it makes
sense that they should sign this statement. But the IETF chair is the best
person to indicate IETF consensus. The IAOC chair is the best person to
indicate specific plans around the contracts etc. And the Trust chair (me)
is the best person to indicate our willingness regarding the trademarks etc.

That being said, 5 signatories is getting to the point of being silly. I'd
be equally happy to simply have Jari sign it on our behalf. It doesn't seem
worth laboring over - if there is consensus either way, then Jari has the
mandate as far as I'm concerned.

Cheers,
-Benson