Re: [Idr] Thoughts on

"Susan Hares" <> Wed, 22 March 2017 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC794129353 for <>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.956
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.956 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nnAARIy-bLsy for <>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9021A12751F for <>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: 'Eric C Rosen' <>,
References: <048701d29cd9$15204b80$3f60e280$> <022201d29ce6$ffb2ba40$ff182ec0$> <> <02dc01d2a25b$a1eca590$e5c5f0b0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:44:23 -0400
Message-ID: <00f701d2a355$78aa2590$69fe70b0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00F8_01D2A333.F19A5A50"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHgLJVhftftdlZ2OeQGM5dxbx7ZtQIfusEjApalZLoB3VIuCQJnQvCHoT53ZeA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Thoughts on
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 21:49:28 -0000



What I summarize from your note is the following: 

1)       You do not feel WG chairs or ADs are collaborative in the IETF
professional society even though the IETF runs on rough consensus and
running code.   You feel WG chairs and ADs are motivated by commercial
reasons before the altruism of the IETF professional ideals.   

2)      You want a BGP attribute name-space without any oversight, even
though squatting brought attribute conflict that lead us to this point. 

3)      "egad process" is the depth of your understanding on the IANA


Wow!  An anarchist in a standards society with a low opinion of moral of WG
chairs and ADs.  

Thank you for bringing an enjoyable moment  into my day.  




From: Eric C Rosen [] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 4:54 PM
To: Susan Hares;
Subject: Re: [Idr] Thoughts on


On 3/21/2017 11:55 AM, Susan Hares wrote:



Politics: I do not know how this introduces politics - since it is just the
WG chairs. The WG chairs for BGP related groups are very collaborative.  

And they would never dream of trying to manipulate the process in order to
slow down the work of a competitor!  Absolutely unheard of.

A committee with no politics?  That would be a first.

If they are not collaborative, the ADs can work with or replace the WG

Oh, no politics there either ;-) And we know how quickly things happen when
the ADs have to "work with or replace" the chairs.


How does it speed up things?  It provides 8 designated experts which means
IANA does not have to chase down a few people (2-3).   

Currently, with no designated experts, IANA does not have to chase down
anyone.  Requiring additional approvals can only slow things down, not speed
them up.

This is the most often reason for IANA slow-downs (AFAIK).  The
collaborative chairs can decide on a rotation for a designated person to
check up with other chairs.  

Egad, more process.

Have I responded to all your concerns?  


Not at all.