Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process

John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Thu, 22 January 2015 06:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jcurran@istaff.org>
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 67A4F1AC41C for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:22:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 F7eX1sZkqpBc for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:22:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.ore.mailhop.org (smtp1.ore.mailhop.org [54.68.34.165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D56611AC419 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:22:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [64.129.1.11] (helo=[172.20.7.122]) by smtp1.ore.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <jcurran@istaff.org>) id 1YEBA2-0005Bd-Ve; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 06:22:35 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: DuoCircle Outbound SMTP
X-Originating-IP: 64.129.1.11
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@duocircle.com (see https://support.duocircle.com/support/solutions/articles/5000540958-duocircle-standard-smtp-abuse-information for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/tTT/ZNlbtRxYudY8z/mwQ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <54C091D2.9050608@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:22:33 -1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1F30A463-76A9-4854-952A-35C54E42D2C6@istaff.org>
References: <C172BBB7-9BA4-4BA7-848C-C7FE5B66CBF7@cooperw.in> <F8FC64C8-6FC7-4672-B18B-46DF993A653A@cooperw.in> <54C091D2.9050608@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/yQUm0QPrFfmVEeDiOG7EM7b43XU>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
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: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 06:22:37 -0000

On Jan 21, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; wrote:
> It would be very tedious to have to repeat on the icg forum all the
> explanations of how Richard's concern misunderstands the IETF rough
> consensus process and ignores this WG's conscious preference not
> to address hypothetical future legal issues when we already have IETF
> organs chartered to do so. Can we assume the ICG members can see these
> explanations without their being repeated?

That's an excellent question, but even if the stated answer were "yes"
I'm not certain its reasonable to rely (or expect) each member of the 
ICG to review the discussion in this portion of the community in order 
to obtain a thorough understanding of the arguments contrary to Richard's
assertions of process issues... hence, my posting of a brief assessment 
as I see it, and leads me also to believe that a statement from a more 
authoritative party (e.g. the WG chairs, IESG, or the IAB) highlighting 
the main arguments might be prudent.  There's no doubt that preparation 
of such would be tedious, and hence the effort required to do so should 
be weighed against the IETF's view of the importance of the task at hand.

/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.