IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 25 August 2015 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 A8B0E1A8789 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 4Kjvmlqw463L for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DD891A87AA for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1ZUITH-0002B5-Of; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:57:19 -0400
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:57:14 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <0CCC053E09A9D19611F9A964@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/v4Apz8vIStc-nkq4AY54z_wEDBE>
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 17:57:22 -0000


--On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:58 -0400 "Leslie Daigle
(ThinkingCat)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com> wrote:

> I do, though, fear it reads a little piecemeal and puzzling.
> 
> Addressing the scope question head on, I could suggest:
> 
> 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.    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.

FWIW, I agree about "piecemeal and puzzling".  The above
variation works for me.  For the record, others might as well,
but this is, AFAICT, best yet.

    john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email