IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 24 October 2014 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 B03ED1A1A48 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, 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 uM3owT_bVpGe for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 305FA1A1A3D for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.134.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9OF5g4c017443 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1414163153; x=1414249553; bh=Jsv5mAkqa4KK6DOk2WxttNz6NVm5My07F36CZvi0CWA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=b+wBK1aYMBMbIkUyI3EY0kCTOrr/O+oivJiYvGoDkOcYWs0vdi4RrLYc/qo14RsEH p2jmQGRyzf18hpa16+P+rl+l7R8fHj062p5S0D6RhE5CpvVv22iT2Dd5He3lOLxTLi E0CBzKtlrLhTkF96WUde7fK5WvF5a72zc5NxYS+E=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1414163153; x=1414249553; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Jsv5mAkqa4KK6DOk2WxttNz6NVm5My07F36CZvi0CWA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=yFXdo5Nqe8M8DivFIAl2WfJ4qtPm3HO9mJHFwdglEVBh4FrQ/l6fOsxBGBgTaLEMp +Uxa7043WTHta5JnXWh+7ntEUut0IFg0nmwGOvohaI0gUzSBoS4qnoShKXbgW8sjIQ A1TC0yoZs8ovBi4Nac89ElSfK4XdpGgXXsPIGcuk=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20141024044818.0ce9bed0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 05:22:58 -0700
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, ianaplan@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <544A289B.3080507@cisco.com>
References: <54017E09.8060504@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140830052032.0c96c880@resistor.net> <54047E4A.30503@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140901094544.0b305698@resistor.net> <54059587.8070608@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20141024004255.0b5ef5d8@resistor.net> <544A289B.3080507@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/vRMytbTWLG8CjCWFInJUxaEKLxA
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your 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: <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: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:06:06 -0000

Hi Eliot,
At 03:23 24-10-2014, Eliot Lear wrote:
>And the chair of the SSAC, and others who directly participate in other
>activities.

[snip]

>Yes you have, SM, because we have discussed this before.

That must be the message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg00102.html I 
do not think that could be summaried as "many people from those 
organizations" unless "many" is considered as at least three.

>You have the causalities backwards.  6852 summarizes in an informational
>a philosophy way that the IETF and other standards bodies use.  It could
>be described as an observation, much in the same vein as the tao.

I would like to respectfully point out that the philosophy is an IAB 
document and not an IETF document.  Quoting from 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74642.html

   "[The] explanation of the document's efficacy leaves me skeptical. We should
    always do something for a reason."

There is already a reference to RFC 2026 in the draft.  Nobody has 
argued that RFC 2026 is inadequate in describing the IETF process or 
its philosophy.  As such I would like to understand why the editors 
are insisting on having that reference.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email