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

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Tue, 25 August 2015 06:15 UTC

Return-Path: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
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 E8B321AD359 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 bi993_l2vYcR for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-sh2.infomaniak.ch (smtp-sh2.infomaniak.ch [128.65.195.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85FD31ACEE4 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp3.infomaniak.ch (smtp3.infomaniak.ch [84.16.68.91]) by smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7P6FYCt026703 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:15:34 +0200
Received: from RHillNew (adsl-178-39-130-230.adslplus.ch [178.39.130.230]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp3.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7P6FXZZ030053; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:15:34 +0200
From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: 'Eliot Lear' <lear@cisco.com>, 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 'Stephen Farrell' <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "'Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)'" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, "'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
References: <3A072B1E-FE4C-476E-B6F8-0309F377D221@thinkingcat.com> <55DB487A.2060303@cisco.com> <6f7112a4-4313-4c33-b7d9-a238f01920f8@email.android.com> <55DB4F0E.9000105@cisco.com> <aced0eb7-deed-48e4-85cf-a0ffe55b34aa@email.android.com> <55DB5C8E.20406@cisco.com> <55DB7C4C.7070801@cs.tcd.ie> <55DB99D6.6080201@gmail.com> <001b01d0defb$0b93d660$22bb8320$@ch> <55DC043E.8060004@cisco.com> <006d01d0defc$c3c18970$4b449c50$@ch> <55DC079E.4000202@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <55DC079E.4000202@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:15:48 +0200
Message-ID: <009c01d0defd$7cbb3480$76319d80$@ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009D_01D0DF0E.40440480"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdDe/Ta6IBcWwxAPSkKSg7qvLpvmJAAABpSg
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: Dr.Web (R) for Unix mail servers drweb plugin ver.6.0.2.8
X-Antivirus-Code: 0x100000
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/rcINlvvAyDfzNLwr5mbPCqeb6cs>
Cc: 'Marc Blanchet' <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] 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 06:15:47 -0000

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:lear@cisco.com] 
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:lear@cisco.com]
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:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
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

ietf@ietf.org.

 
    Brian

 

 

 
 
_______________________________________________
Ianaplan mailing list
Ianaplan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan