Re: [Ianaplan] [IAB] one final last call comment on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

[many cc:s trimmed]

M. Morfin,

I will not dignify your unsubstantiated smears about me with a
response.  But a couple items in your note do require a reply.

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 04:13:05AM +0100, Jefsey wrote:

> Unfortunately, you accepted to be the shepherd of a document making the IETF
> decision on a point you disagree we should agree.

I'm sorry, but the shepherd does not make any "IETF decision".  The
shepherd runs the document through the process.  Consensus is still
determined by the chairs.

> This seems to be in contradiction with the RFC 4858 letter and spirit.

I don't know why you say that, but perhaps indicating specific text in
RFC 4858 that I have violated would help me.

> 
> >Some participants said they didn't understand it.  Others
> >said it was irrelevant to the WG's work.
> 
> I hope this was intended to purposely hurt Libre's contributors.

[I read your "not" from the other message in this.]  It was not, of
course.  I am sorry if it is hurtful to people who worked on that
contribution, but I believe it is my responsibility to report the
remarks from the WG as I understand them.  I think the archives will
indicate that what I said is true.

> >The shepherd write-up does not have to mention everything anyone ever
> >said about a document, because if an observation did not produce any
> >appreciable effect on the WG's discussion then it cannot be taken to
> >be a point of serious consideration by the WG.  The IESG knows where
> >the WG archives are; if they want a blow-by-blow review of the WG's
> >discussions, they can read those archives.
> 
> OK. Now you are laughing at IESG.

I am not laughing at the IESG; I am rather trying to make their burden
lighter.  I do not believe I misrepresented anything that occurred in
the WG, and if you think I did I should like very much to know what it
is.  I have stated why I did not include a reference to your
particular comment.  I _also_, note, did not include any reference to
particular comments I made during the WG efforts; that includes not
mentioning any of the times where I did not agree with the WG's
conclusions.  The shepherd report does not include every single thing
that anyone ever disagreed with, but only those cases about which
there was substantial disagreement.  Your contribution -- which
admittedly might have got rather more attention if it had been
submitted to the I-D repository in the usual way -- had for practical
purposes no effect on the WG's discussions.  I don't see why it needs
to be mentioned at all in any report.

> Let's be candid. I am not aware that anyone else formally announced an
> appeal. So why take the risk of playing it low key?

There is one, and only one, way to "formally" announce an appeal, and
that is to file it.  Please, go ahead if you care to.  But until you
do, your "formal" announcement is of no more consequence to the WG or
to the IETF than an announcement that you shall have toast and tea at
breakfast.

Sincerely,

Andrew Sullivan

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]