Fwd: [Ianaplan] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06.txt> (Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA protocol parameters registries) to Informational RFC

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

This is the second forwarded message.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Richard Hill" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: [Ianaplan] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06.txt> (Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA protocol parameters registries) to Informational RFC
> Date: 11 Dec 2014 06:39:11 EST
> To: "Jari Arkko" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
> 
> Dear Jari,
> 
> Thank you for this.  I do understand the consensus call is a judgement call.
> But, as I understand RFC 7282, a justification should be provided for the
> judgement call. And that is what I am requesting.
> 
> Regarding the "sheperd writeup", I have requested some changes, see:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01415.html
> 
> Regarding the IESG, that body requested comments, and that is why I
> submitted my comments to the IETF list.
> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: mercredi, 10. décembre 2014 11:28
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Last Call:
>> <draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06.txt> (Draft Response to the
>> Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA protocol
>> parameters registries) to Informational RFC
>> 
>> 
>> Richard,
>> 
>>> On 27 November, I requested that the co-chairs provide a
>> justification for
>>> the conclusion that rough consensus has been achieved, see:
>>> 
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01402.html
>>> 
>>> The requested justification has not yet been provided.
>> 
>> Calling the consensus is a judgment call. For what it is worth, I
>> have been
>> quite satisfied with the chairs and the document shepherd reading the
>> opinions of the group. Their thoughts have been discussed in the thread
>> “draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step”, see the thread
>> beginning at
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01401.html
>> 
>> See in particular this e-mail:
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01406.html
>> 
>> as well as the shepherd writeup:
>> 
>> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/shepherdwr
> iteup/
> 
> Also, for information, the IESG has not yet considered this draft. But they
> will. Right now it's in IETF last call, the outcome of which will first be
> evaluated by the responsible AD, in this case me. And then by the IESG
> as a whole. At that point the IESG will determine if there have been any
> process or other issues that need consideration or action.
> 
> Jari
> 
>