IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 05 November 2014 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 0B45B1A9069 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:02:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 mTpNLlGRJV1k for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:02:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 155F71A040B for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:02:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [50.189.173.0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 122A18A035 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 18:02:40 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 13:02:38 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20141105180238.GX30379@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEOJCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <54594A50.4090305@meetinghouse.net> <20141105001731.GA30186@mx1.yitter.info> <54597BDB.7040305@meetinghouse.net> <9FDE1247-717D-487F-BC0E-E30FEA33536F@gmail.com> <545A5859.1060505@meetinghouse.net> <D07F9A64.1367AE%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <545A6358.1000304@meetinghouse.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <545A6358.1000304@meetinghouse.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/x1UxP6qvfc10ZTlLZOM0FRdLGgs
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
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: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 18:02:42 -0000

On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 12:50:16PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Yes, but the IETF is MORE than the WG and RFC processes.  The question is,
> how does the IETF address issues that go beyond technical ones?

I'm sorry, but for the purposes of stating what "the IETF wants", the
IETF is not more than the consensus-calling process that we use for
everything else.  There is exactly one way for the IETF to say what
"it" wants, and that is to do a consensus call.

The various "other bodies" that you seem to keep pointing to are, yes,
irrelevant to that.  The IAOC has to do what it is instructed to do.
And the IAB functions independently -- it has its own mechanism by
which it determines what the IAB wants.

This is all, by the way, nicely and clearly outlined in several of the
documents referred to by the WG's I-D. 

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email